13 WP-3462-26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3462 OF 2026 Sunita Sudhakar Parab ..Petitioner Versus Slum Rehabilitation Authority & ors. …Respondents Dr. Uday Warunjikar i/b Ms. Sadhna Yadav, for the Petitioner. Ms. Rutuja Shedge i/b Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal, for Respondent Nos. 1 & 3. Mr. Chaitanya Chavan i/b Mr. Ankit Dubey, for Respondent No. 4. Ms. Anu C Kaladharan i/b Mr. Kanhaiya Yadav, for Respondent No.5. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 27th July 2026 Oral Order :- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to the following order, dated 03rd July 2026 passed by the Chairman, Apex Grievance Redressal Committee :- 2) After hearing all parties matter stands close for order, parties to Ale written arguments within 15 days if they so desire. No stay. SAINATH, PA 1/4 SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Digitally signed by SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Date: 2026.07.28 15:15:21 +0530 13 WP-3462-26.DOC 3. Dr. Warunjikar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that, on the one hand, the AGRC has not delivered the judgment though the matter is closed for orders, and on the other hand, the petitioner has been served with a notice dated 13th July 2026 that the Petitioner will be forcibly evicted. 4. Copy of the notice is annexed at Exhibit R to the petition. The said notice indicates that, the petitioner has been declared eligible for the beneAt under the subject Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. 5. Apart from the relative merits of the claim of the parties, this Court is more concerned with the decision making process. The impugned order, extracted above, singularly lacks reason as to why the AGRC declined to grant stay to the execution and operation of the order impugned in the appeal before the AGRC. It cannot be overemphasized that, reasons are the soul of the decision making process. An order sans reasons, is not a determination in the eyes of law. 6. If the AGRC was not inclined to grant stay, it should have recorded reasons, howsoever brief; so that the legality and propriety thereof could be tested, should there be a challenge to the said order. The absence of reasons denudes the impugned SAINATH, PA 2/4 13 WP-3462-26.DOC order the essential character of quasi-judicial determination. Thus, it cannot be sustained. 7. The situation which thus obtains is that, the petitioner, who does not know why stay is refused, and whose appeal is awaiting verdict from AGRC, is threatened with the action of forcible eviction. 8. In these circumstances, the petition deserves to be allowed. 9. Hence, the following order :- : : O R D E R : : i) The Writ Petition stands allowed. ii) The impugned order of “no stay” stands quashed and set aside. iii) There shall be stay to the execution and operation of the order passed by the Appellate Authority till the Anal decision of the Appeal No.250/2026 by the AGRC. In the event, AGRC passes an order adverse to the interest of the petitioner, there shall be a further stay to the execution and operation of the order passed by the Appellate Authority for a period of one week thereafter. SAINATH, PA 3/4 13 WP-3462-26.DOC iv) It is clariAed that, this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and AGRC shall decide the Appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH, PA 4/4