905-wp 13938-26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13938 OF 2026 Tehsin Shabbir Shaikh … Petitioner Versus The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee-II & Ors. ... Respondents __________________________ Ms. Abhijit Patil for the Petitioner. Smt. P. H. Kantharia for Respondent No.1-AGRC. Mr. Milind More for the Respondent-SRA. Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Addl GP a/w. Mr. A. K. Naik, AGP for the Respondent-State. __________________________ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 16 th OCTOBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Smt. Kantharia, learned counsel for the respondent No.1- AGRC submitted that the petitioner (appellant before the AGRC) has not been held to be eligible as his name is not reflected in the Annexure-II. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the premises in question were purchased by him and therefore no proceedings for eviction under Section 33/38 could have been Amk 1/2 ARJUN MACHHINDRA KADAM Digitally signed by ARJUN MACHHINDRA KADAM Date: 2026.10.16 16:29:17 +0530 905-wp 13938-26.doc initiated. According to him, it is the only proceeding under Section 3E can be justified. 3. We are not making any observation as the final order is yet to be uploaded by the AGRC. Considering that the eviction notice is to take effect today, we are inclined to grant limited protection to the petitioner in the interest of justice. Till the order of the AGRC is uploaded, the petitioner not to be evicted. 4. The AGRC not to be influenced by any observations that we have made or the limited protection granted by us. The AGRC to pass the order on its own merits. 5. The petition is disposed of. (SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.) Amk 2/2