Petitioners sought to challenge a Slum Rehabilitation Authority decision by writ petition. Counsel stated an alternate statutory appeal remedy exists, so the petition was withdrawn with liberty to file an appeal; status-quo directed for 20 days with merits kept open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
904-WP-5015-2024.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5015 OF 2024
M/s. Gautam Developers & Anr. …Petitioners Versus Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. …Respondents
Mr. M. M. Vashi, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Manisha Desai, Advocate, i/b. M/s. M. P. Vashi & Associates, for the Petitioners. Mr. Vishwanath Patil a/w. Mr. Kedar Nhavkar, Advocates, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3-SRA.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 27th NOVEMBER 2024
P. C.:
Petitioner fairly states that there is an alternate remedy of filing Statutory Appeal under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“ said Act ”) and therefore, seeks leave to withdraw the Writ Petition. He
only states that status-quo order be passed for a period of 20 days.
with liberty to file Statutory Appeal under the said Act.
Page 1 of 2
Sonali
904-WP-5015-2024.DOC
and all contentions on merits are expressly kept open.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
Page 2 of 2
Sonali
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s. Gautam Developers & Anr.
Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Madhav J. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
