25-WP10936-2026.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10936 OF 2026 Sunil Sonu Mohite ...Petitioner Versus Grievance Redcressal Committee Administrative And Ors …Respondents Mr. Hrishikesh Nabar, for the Petitioner Ms. Tanya Goswami, for the SRA. Mr. Kishor Walanju, a/w Vishal Gaikwad, for the Intervener. Mr. Y. S. Khochare, ‘B’ Panel Counsel a/w Mr.. Y. D. Patil, AGP for the State/Respondent. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026 Oral Order:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 7th April, 2026 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) in Appeal No. 265/2025 against an order dated 27th October, 2025 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner, came to be dismissed. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the GRC has not recorded reasons. GRC has simply observed that it agrees with the reasons recorded by the Appellate Authority. There is no independent evaluation of the grounds urged by the 1/4 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.09 20:06:29 +0530 25-WP10936-2026.DOC petitioner in the appeal assailing the order passed by the Appellate Authority. 4. Ms. Goswami, the learned Counsel for the SRA and Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the intervener, initially opposed the submissions canvassed on behalf of the petitioner. It was urged that the tenement was transferred in favour of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons illegally. Therefore, the Authorities were justified in dismissing the appeal. 5. From the perusal of the impugned order passed by the GRC, the only reason which can be discerned from the impugned order is to be found in paragraph 12 thereof, which reads as under: “12. ……. This committee avoids mentioning the findings of the Learned Appellate Authority here again to avoid repetition and prolixity. After carefully examining the provisions of law as mentioned above, this Committee believes that the Learned Appellate Authority has passed a reasoned order and there is no need to interfere in the impugned order by the hands of this Committee since the appellant failed to establish the case as pleaded in the appeal.” 6. Evidently, the GRC has not at all considered the matter as an appellate forum so as to examine the legality, propriety and correctness of the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The GRC was expected to come in close quarters with the reasons 2/4 25-WP10936-2026.DOC recorded by the Appellate Authority and then arrive at an independent decision. Instead, the GRC has simply observed that it endorses the reasons recorded by the Appellate Authority. 7. The impugned order singularly lacks reasons. It is trite when an appeal is provided against an order, the Appellate Authority is required to record its independent reasons, howsoever brief those reasons may be. It cannot simply dismiss the appeal observing that it endorses the views of the lower Authority. 8. Resultantly, the petition deserves to be allowed and the appeal is required to be remitted back to the GRC for afresh decision in accordance with law. 9. Hence, the following order: : O R D E R : (i) The petition stands allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 27th October, 2025 passed by the Additional Collector (E&R) in Appeal No. 728/2025 stands quashed and set aside. (iii) Appeal No. 265/2025 stands restored to the file of GRC. 3/4 25-WP10936-2026.DOC (iv) GRC is requested to hear and decide the appeal afresh and pass a reasoned order. (v) It is hereby made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the matter and all contentions of all the parties are kept open for determination by the GRC. (vi) GRC is requested to make an endeavour to hear and decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 4/4