[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Naresh Paul Parmar vs The State Of Maharashtra And 7 Ors on 8 April, 2026
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik, S. M. Modak
2026:BHC-OS:8687-DB
18-wp 750-22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 750 OF 2022
Naresh Paul Parmar ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
__________________________
Ms. Shakuntala A. Mudbidri for the Petitioner.
Mr. Suraj Gupte, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Nidhi Chauhan i/b Mr. Vishwanath Patil for Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
Mr. Johnson John for Respondent No.7.
Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) a/w. Mr. Abhijit Patil for Respondent
No.8.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATED : 8th APRIL, 2026.
ORAL ORDER (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.):
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The joint family structure of the petitioner's mother was held eligible
under adjoining Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of Shivneri Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd. The claim of the petitioner was mainly based on
Election Voting List of 01.01.1995. By the impugned Order, based on
the order dated 29th September, 2008 passed by the High Power
Committee on an application filed by Mr. Sadgun M. Parmar and 55 others
challenging the validity and legality of the Slum Scheme sanctioned by the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short 'SRA') and in view of the
18-wp 750-22.doc
contention that bogus or no consent was obtained, the issue was re-
examined and by the impugned order dated 3 rd December, 2008, the SRA
held the petitioner to be not eligible under the Scheme. The reasons
recorded are thus:-
"Mr. Naresh P. Parmar was present for hearing. Mr. Naresh P.
Parmar is held eligible on the basis of Election Voting list of
1/1/1995-36 Bandra-122-363-T-12.
It is seen from the record that name of Mr. Naresh Paul
Parmar and his mother Mrs. Nirmala Paul Parmar is shown in one
structure in the voting list of 1/1/1995. And Mrs. Nirmala P.
Parmar has already sold her structure to one Mrs. Maria Fernandis
who is already been held eligible under the adjoining Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme of Shivneri CHS vide the order dated
16/6/2003 by the Secretary SRA. Hence he is held non-eligible
under the Scheme."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
Order was passed even without hearing the petitioner, therefore, in breach
of principles of natural justice. Shri Reddy, learned counsel for the SRA
vehemently opposed the petition. It is submitted that the impugned Order
clearly reflects that the petitioner was present for the hearing. Reasons
have been assigned as to why the petitioner has been held to be not
eligible under the scheme. It is further submission of Shri Reddy that the
Order dated 3rd December, 2008 is challenged by the petitioner in this
petition only on 22nd October, 2021. According to Shri Reddy the petition
18-wp 750-22.doc
is hopelessly barred by limitation and suffers from delay and laches.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner responded by contending that till
2016 she was in occupation of the subject structure which is alleged to
have been sold by the petitioner. The petitioner was not aware of the
Order passed by the SRA till 2016. Thereafter, the petitioner made a
detailed representation to the Under Secretary, Department of Housing,
Government of Maharashtra on 1st October, 2019 for inquiry into the
Annexure-II wherein two persons are held eligible in lieu of one hutment in
two different Slum Redevelopment Scheme/Projects. In the said
representation, the petitioner has stated that a fraud has been committed
in implementation of the scheme. It is further stated that the voters list
and electrical bill are prima-facie evidence that the petitioner is hutment
dweller in the scheme of Pali Pereirawadi SRA CHS Ltd located on 30 th
road and not Shivneri SRA SRA CHS Ltd which is located on 29th road.
6. The State of Maharashtra had informed the Additional Collector
(Encroachment) to take appropriate action on the representation preferred
by the petitioner by the communication dated 13 th December, 2019.
Though learned counsel Shri Reddy submitted that the petitioner was duly
heard, however, in paragraph No.7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has
averred as under:-
"7. The petitioner states that from the period 18 th March 2006 to
23rd December 2008 the petitioner was not in India. However, the
18-wp 750-22.doc
Hon'ble High Power Committee/Respondent No.8 by its Report dated
3rd December 2008 wrongly held that the petitioner was present for
hearing and recorded a finding that the name of the petitioner's
mother Mrs. Nirmala Paul Parmar, hutment No.T-12, is shown under
the S.R. Scheme of Respondent No.6-Shivneri SRA CHS Ltd. in the
Supplementary Annexure dated 16th June 2003 issued and certified
by the Secretary, SRA-Respondent No.4 and further held that the
petitioner's mother Nirmala Paul Parmar had already sold her
hutment in Respondent No.6-Shivneri CHS Ltd. to one Mrs. Maria
Fernandes-Respondent No.7 by executing an Affidavit dated 8 th June
1993 and hence the petitioner is to be held non-eligible in
Respondent No.5 S.R. Scheme. As per the said report dated 3 rd
December 2008, a total of 22 slum dwellers were held non-eligible
under the said Scheme of Respondent No.5-Society including the
petitioner at serial No.27 of the said Report."
7. The petitioner has relied upon a copy of the passport to indicate that
the petitioner was not in India on the date when it is stated the petitioner
was heard.
8. Considering that the petitioner was pursuing the matter with the
State Government and even as the State Government had called upon the
Additional Collector to examine the complaint made by the petitioner, in
our opinion, without going into the adverting in detail to the issue whether
the petitioner was present for the hearing or not, in the interest of justice
and with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioner to present his case,
the impugned order so far as the petitioner is concerned is set aside.
18-wp 750-22.doc
9. The Secretary, the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (for short
'AGRC') to re-hear the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with
law.
10. The petitioner to appear before the Secretary, AGRC on 21st April,
2026 along with a copy of this Order.
11. Let the matter be considered afresh by the Secretary, AGRC within a
period of eight weeks from the date of communication of the Order.
12. If the petitioner is held to be eligible, the question of further
consequences will arise which the SRA shall obviously look into and take
appropriate steps only so far as this petitioner is concerned.
13. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion on the
merits of the contentions. Keeping all contentions open, the petition is
disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
