Bombay High Court
Dinesh Bansi Yadav vs The Hon'Ble Grievance Redressal ... on 1 February, 2022
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
1.WPNo.140152018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.14015 OF 2018
Dinesh Bansi Yadav. ... Petitioner
V/s.
1.The Hon'ble Girevance Redressal Committee
Mumbai Suburban, Mumbai.
2. Mrs.Gracy Eapen George.
3. Mr.Grace Eapen George. ... Respondents
-----
Mr.Rahul Kedar i/b. Mr.Vikrant D.Shetty, for the Petitioner.
Mr.P.V.Nelson Ranjan, AGP for the State.
-----
C0RAM : G. S. KULKARNI, J.
RESERVED ON : 28 September, 2021
PRONOUNCED ON : 1 FEBRUARY 2022
JUDGMENT:
1. The petitioner who is a slum dweller challenges an order dated 16
August 2018 passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee on an appeal
filed by the petitioner under Section 35(1A) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,1971 (for short 'the
Slum Act'). Some facts may be noted.
2. The petitioner made a complaint of illegal construction by the
adjoining slum dwellers, who are respondent Nos.2 and 3. Admittedly, the
petitioner has not produced the sanctioned building plan in respect of the
structure of respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Gaikwad RD 1/7
1.WPNo.140152018.doc
3. The petitioner's complaint against respondent Nos.2 and 3 dated 8
January 2016 was forwarded by the Assistant Engineer to the Competent
Authority for its decision. The Competent Authority held a hearing on the
complaint of the petitioner and passed an order dated 5 th October 2016
without hearing respondent Nos.2 and 3 against whom the complaint was
made by the petitioner. The Competent Authority by such order allowed the
petitioner's complaint by directing the respondent No.2 to remove the
unauthorized structures. Against such order passed by the Competent
Authority, respondent No.2 approached the appellate authority being the
Additional Collector (E/R) in an appeal (Appeal Nos. 1069 of 2016 and
1070 of 2016) which was filed, as permissible under the rules. The
appellate authority considering the rival contentions, by an order dated 2 nd
April 2018 partly allowed the respondents' appeal. By such order, the
appellate authority remanded the matter to the Competent Authority by
permitting the parties to produce their respective documentary evidence
and directing the Competent Authority to decide the petitioner's complaint
afresh. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said decision of the appellate
authority approached the Grievance Redressal Committee by filing Appeal
No. 709 of 2018. The Grievance Redressal Committee by the impugned
order while dismissing the appeal and upholding the order passed by the
appellate authority and the remand of the matter to the Competent
Gaikwad RD 2/7
1.WPNo.140152018.doc
Authority has observed that the petitioner needs to produce documentary
evidence before the Competent Authority to support his case. The
Competent Authority was directed to take a fresh decision upon the
petitioner's complaint preferably within a period of three months from
receipt of the said order. The operative order of the Grievance Redressal
Committee is required to be noted, which reads thus :-
"1. Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 02.04.2018
passed in appeal no.1069/2016 and 1070/2016 by the Appellate Authority i.e.
respondent no.1 is hereby confirmed. The respondent No.2 and 3 herein are
directed to appear before the Competent Authority within seven days from the
date of receipt of this order or of communication hereof to produce the
documents. The appellant may also produce documentary evidence before the
Competent Authority. The Competent Authority is directed to take the decision
upon the appellant's complaint preferably within the period of three months
from the date of receipt of this order.
2. No order as to costs."
4. The case of the petitioner is not different from what the petitioner
urged before the Grievance Redressal Committee. The primary contentions
of the petitioner interalia as raised in the present petition are to the effect
that the appellate authority failed to consider that there always existed a
well and fully grown coconut tree on the south-west side of the petitioner's
room and that respondent No.2 had illegally filled up the well and cut the
coconut tree and had illegally constructed one room on the south-west side
of the petitioner's room. The appellate authority and the Grievance
Redressal Committed had also failed to appreciate the spot inspection report
Gaikwad RD 3/7
1.WPNo.140152018.doc
of the learned Tahsildar that the construction carried out by the respondent
No.2 appeared to be new. It is contended that on account of the illegal
construction as carried out by respondent nos.2 and 3, the windows and
ventilation of the petitioner's room was permanently blocked, and by this
the petitioner and his family members were suffering from various health
conditions. It is contended that the Grievance Redressal Committee ought
not to have observed that the issue raised by the petitioner was a dispute of
civil nature which could not be gone into by the Grievance Redressal
Committee. It is next contended that the Grievance Redressal Committee
had failed to appreciate that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had produced false
and fabricated documents in support of their case. It is submitted that the
appellate authority and the Grievance Redressal Committee have also erred
in not recording any findings on the fabricated documents produced by
respondent Nos.2 and 3 and had failed to consider the photographs
produced by the petitioner supporting his case.
5. Having noted the contentions as raised on behalf of the petitioner,
the submission as made on behalf of the petitioner need to be noted.
Learned Counsel of the petitioner in assailing the impugned order passed by
the Grievance Redressal Committee would firstly submit that in the facts
and circumstances of the case and considering the order passed by the
Gaikwad RD 4/7
1.WPNo.140152018.doc
Competent Authority in favour of the petitioner, an order of remand, ought
not to have been made by the Grievance Redressal Committee. It is
submitted that the Grievance Redressal Committee ought to have
appreciated that the appellate authority had completely discarded as to
what was decided in favour of the petitioner by the Competent Authority, in
regard to the illegal structure of respondent no.2, against which the
petitioner had complained before such authority. The petitioner has also
contended that the appellate authority has failed to consider the inspection
report. There are other detailed submissions as made on facts.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and having
perused the impugned order passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee,
I am not persuaded to accept any of the contentions as urged on behalf of
the petitioner. This more particularly, since the Grievance Redressal
Committee has made a specific observation that the appellate authority
against whose decision the petitioner had approached the Grievance
Redressal Committee had categorically concluded that respondent Nos.2
and 3, being the appellants before the appellate authority, were not given
an opportunity to produce documents, as also, it was necessary to have the
documents properly verified, as per the Government Resolution dated 16 th
May 2015 so that a decision on merits can be taken by the Competent
Gaikwad RD 5/7
1.WPNo.140152018.doc
Authority. It was observed that the appellate authority had thought it
appropriate that it was necessary that the parties place on record relevant
documents and hence had set aside the order passed by the Competent
Authority, so that the issue can be decided afresh by the Competent
Authority after hearing the parties. In my opinion, in these circumstances,
no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the petitioner, as the impugned
order permits the petitioner to submit fresh material before the Competent
Authority and the Competent Authority would consider such material so as
to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties.
7. Once the appellate authority has observed that appropriate
documentary evidence in support of his case be placed by the petitioner as
also by respondent Nos.2 and 3 before the Competent Authority, which
would be considered by the Competent Authority, in deciding the complaint
of the petitioner afresh, in such situation, in my opinion, the petitioner
cannot take a position that such an order of remand is against his interest.
This also for the reason that all the contentions of the petitioner on the
documents including on the documents on which respondent Nos.2 and 3
would rely can be gone into by the Competent Authority. Thus, the
impugned order does not indicate any perversity or illegality that this Court
should interfere in the impugned order which confirms the remand of the
proceedings to the Competent Authority.
Gaikwad RD 6/7
1.WPNo.140152018.doc
8. Certainly, the Grievance Redressal Committee was entitled to use
its discretion in the interest of the parties to remand the matter to the
Competent Authority so that an effective decision is taken by the Competent
Authority by considering all materials which would be presented by the
parties. Once such a discretion has been exercised, on cogent basis and on
parameters which are borne out by the record, it cannot be said that
exercise of such discretion would amount to any perversity.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, no interference is called for in the
impugned order. The petition is accordingly disposed of, maintaining the
order of the Grievance Redressal Committee, with liberty to the petitioner to
raise all contentions before the Competent Authority.
10. Needless to observe that the contentions of the private
respondents are also expressly kept open. The Competent Authority is
directed to decide the petitioner's complaint on remand, as directed by the
Grievance Redressal Committee, within a period of four months from the
day a copy of this order is placed before it by the petitioner.
11. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
12. Disposed of. No costs.
(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Digitally signed
RAJU
by RAJU
DATTATRAYA Gaikwad RD 7/7
GAIKWAD
DATTATRAYA
GAIKWAD Date:
2022.02.01
21:15:14
+0530
