8-WP3183-2026.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3183 OF 2026 Ramjanam Dayaram Vishwakarma ...Petitioner Versus The Grievance Redressal Committee, Mumbai Suburban …Respondent Mr. Shaikh Usman, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Pathak, AGP for Respondent – State. Mr. Abhijit Aher, i/b Tanaya Goswami, for the SRA. Mr. Sachin Vajale, i/b Komal Punjabi, and Pallavi Tahkar, for Respondent No.3-BMC. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 31st AUGUST, 2026 Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 6th June, 2025 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee, Mumbai Suburban, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Additional Collector (Encroachment/Removal) Eastern Suburban, thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the determination by the Competent Authority that the petitioner was ineligible for the benefits admissible under the Road Widening Project, came to be dismissed. 1/3 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.03 10:55:41 +0530 8-WP3183-2026.DOC 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the structure is in fact residential. The petitioner under an incorrect impression about the nature of the inquiry and the legal implications thereof had submitted documents which indicated that the structure was put to commercial use. Attention of the Court was invited to the notice dated 19th September, 2018 issued by the Municipal Assistant Engineer (N-Ward), Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation, wherein it was, inter alia, mentioned that the petitioner had constructed a residential structure without obtaining the permission of the Planning Authority and the said structure was causing obstruction in the Road Widening Project. 4. The submissions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner do not merit any countenance. The response dated 1st October, 2018 by the petitioner to the said notice makes the nature of the structure explicitly clear. It was, inter alia, contended by the petitioner that the shop premises was in existence since prior to 1991. Alongwith the said response, the petitioner had forwarded copies of the certificate issued under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, new and old electricity bills, copy of Industry Aadhar, GST Registration and Income Tax Returns. It defies comprehension that if the structure was residential, the 2/3 8-WP3183-2026.DOC petitioner was required to apply to and obtain the aforesaid certificates/registrations. The Authority has, thus, committed no error in declaring the petitioner ineligible. 5. The petition being devoid of substance stands dismissed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 3/3