Bombay High Court
Pravin Subhash Alias Yashwant Shevare vs Caste Scrutiny Committee Schedule ... on 17 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:49676
25.WP.13741.2024(1).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13741 OF 2024
Shahnaz Gulam Khan ....Petitioner
Versus
Grievance Redressal Committee,
Mumbai Suburban & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr. Nitesh Acharya a/w. Akash S. Bhogil, Advocates for
Petitioner.
Mr. Abhijit Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
Mr. Pankaj Das, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
DATE : NOVEMBER 17, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties
and the Petition is heard finally.
2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.2, the
First Appellate Authority, has treated an Appeal filed by Respondent
No.6, Shabbir Bashir Memon ("Memon") as a complaint and even while
sitting in the jurisdiction of an Appellate Authority has chosen to
remand the purported complaint to Respondent No.3, the Competent
Digitally
signed by
AARTI
AARTI GAJANAN
GAJANAN PALKAR
PALKAR Date:
2025.11.19
+0530
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Aarti Palkar
25.WP.13741.2024(1).doc
Authority, to examine the veracity of the Annexure II drawn up in
favour of the Petitioner.
3. A brief factual overview necessary for the purposes of these
proceedings is set out below:
A] The Petitioner was listed in Annexure II, way back on
January 3, 2006, having been found in the actual
occupation of the unit in dispute. However, since it was
found that the Petitioner was said to not have purchased
the slum structure prior to the cut-off date of January 1,
2000, the Petitioner was declared as non-eligible. This
meant that the Petitioner was actually in occupation and
possession of the unit in question but was not eligible only
because of the cut-off date;
B] Thereafter, pursuant to a Government Resolution dated
May 16, 2015, subject to payment of Rs.40,000/-,
ineligibility of the Petitioner, on the basis of the cut-off
date was effaced. Thereafter the Petitioner filed an
application on May 16, 2015. seeking declaration that the
Petitioner is eligible;
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Aarti Palkar
25.WP.13741.2024(1).doc
C] The premises was said to have been demolished in 2008.
The Competent Authority has declared the Petitioner as
eligible on December 21, 2022. An appeal against this
decision was filed by Memon evidently after the 30-day
deadline stipulated in Section 35 of The Maharashtra Slum
Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
1971; and
D] The grievance of the Petitioner is that there is no
application for condonation of delay. That apart, it is
submitted that the matter was heard in her absence with
the proceedings having been adjourned to a date when the
Appellate Authority did not sit and a new date having been
given behind her back without the Petitioner having had an
opportunity of being heard.
4. It is apparent that the hearing was scheduled on March 20, 2023
on which date the matter stood adjourned to April 10, 2023. However,
it appears that on March 29, 2023, the matter was mentioned by
Memon before the Appellate Authority and a new date of April 11, 2023
was fixed without notice to the Petitioner. It is the Petitioner's case
that the Petitioner appeared on April 10, 2023 and was informed that
the matter was not listed on that date and the new date would be
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Aarti Palkar
25.WP.13741.2024(1).doc
informed. However, on April 26, 2023, the Petitioner learnt that on
April 11, 2023 the matter had been heard and reserved ex-parte which
led to the order dated July 28, 2023 being passed.
5. The Second Appellate Authority has essentially noticed that all
that the Appellate Authority has done is to examine the matter afresh
and therefore did not interfere with the order dated July 28, 2023.
Both these orders are impugned.
6. Having read the order dated July 28, 2023, it is apparent that the
Appellate Authority has explicitly stated that the matter is not being
treated as an appeal, and that it is being treated as a "complaint". This
is inexplicable. Whether the matter was being treated as an appeal or
as a complaint, the least that could have been done was to give the
Petitioner a hearing. Without the appeal being treated as an appeal,
and that too when the appeal had not been filed within limitation and
that too without any explanation of the delay, the Appellate Authority
purportedly converting the appeal into a complaint has resulted in it
being a backdoor means of allowing the appeal. The remand of the
proceedings to the Competent Authority for appropriate adjudication
afresh, to verify competing claims is not tenable, when at the relevant
time, it appears that the Petitioner had indeed been found to be in
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Aarti Palkar
25.WP.13741.2024(1).doc
occupation and possession with the only disqualification being non-
compliance with the cut-off date.
7. This approach does not lend itself to approval. First, the role of
the Appellate Authority is a quasi-judicial one. There has been a delay
in filing of the appeal, and the appeal being a creature of statute, that
facet ought to have been dealt with. Second, a quasi-judicial
jurisdiction ought to be exercised judicially with reasons after hearing
all parties and giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to respond to the
appeal. The sequence of events leading up to the ex parte order does
not inspire confidence about the due process meant to be followed.
Evidently, the Petitioner had not been heard at all. If the Petitioner had
been heard, all these contentions could have been considered within
the appellate jurisdiction and an informed decision could have been
taken. Third, the second Appellate Authority too has dealt with the
matter with a non-judicial approach and simply let reconsideration
take place upon remand, thereby upholding the appellate order.
8. In these circumstances, it is felt appropriate to set aside the
Impugned Order dated April 30, 2024 and the order dated July 28,
2023, since due process is the only protection that would be available to
the parties concerned and the Petitioner has not been given the
protection of a due process being adopted. The matter is remanded to
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Aarti Palkar
25.WP.13741.2024(1).doc
First Appellate Authority who shall hear the parties on all facets of the
matter including delay. Being a first appeal, that Appellate Authority
would be entitled to examine various facets of the matter and then
come to a decision, should a case for condonation of delay be made out.
9. Should there be any other submissions that the parties would
need to make, including explanation of the delay, the parties would be
free to bring on record such other documents before the Appellate
Authority. Considering that the Petitioner had been found to be in
occupation of the property in question when the survey was actually
conducted, if the outcome of the appeal were to be adverse to the
Petitioner, the same shall not be given effect to for a period of four
weeks to enable the Petitioner to examine his prospects to challenge
such adverse order.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the Petition is hereby finally
disposed of.
11. The parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate
Authority on December 1, 2025 at 12 noon who shall then issue
appropriate directions to them on how to carry the matter forward.
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Aarti Palkar
25.WP.13741.2024(1).doc
12. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be
taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court's
website.
[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
Aarti Palkar
