10-WP3849-2026.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3849 OF 2026 Raksha Arjun Dhanak ...Petitioner Versus The Grievance Redressal Committee, Mumbai Suburban & ors. …Respondents 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 whereby the Grievance Redressal Committee dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 35/2024, which had, in turn, dismissed the appeal against the determination under the Annexure-II that the petitioner was ineligible qua a commercial structure. 1/3 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.03 13:33:23 +0530 10-WP3849-2026.DOC 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to the letter dated 16th April, 2021, which indicated that, in the survey of the slums carried out in the year 2000 by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, the petitioner was issued Survey Slip 0840900. Yet, the Competent Authority has observed that for want of clarification from MHADA, the petitioner was declared ineligible qua a commercial structure. 4. This Court finds that, that was not the sole ground on which the petitioner was declared ineligible qua a commercial structure. The Authority has found that, there was no document which was predated 1st January, 2000, to show the occupation by the petitioner of the subject structure for a commercial purpose. The electricity connection for the commercial purpose was obtained in the year 2004. None of the voters list indicated that, the petitioner was in the occupation of the commercial structure prior to 1st January, 2000. 5. Thus, upon appraisal of the material on record, the Authorities have arrived at a justifiable finding as the petitioner failed to place on record any credible material to show that she was in occupation of the commercial structure since prior to 1st January, 2000. Therefore, this Court in exercise of its 2/3 10-WP3849-2026.DOC supervisory jurisdiction does not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 6. The petition stands dismissed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 3/3