Mr Uttam M Chandvale vs Haresh K Nanwani and Ors.

In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said undertaking, the contemnor has undertaken to pay an amount of 15,000 to the₹ petitioners with effect from 1 October 2025. The said payment shall be made before Diwali, i.e., on or before 20 October 2025. To

¶30

2

¶31

37-cp-642-2024.doc

¶32

explain the earlier delay or non-compliance, the contemnor has referred to the order dated 2 July 2025 passed by the Executive Engineer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA).

¶33

On examining the said order, it is noticed that the Executive Engineer acted upon a complaint made by a local MLA alleging violations of rules and regulations. The allegations are general in nature and not supported by any verified facts or judicial directions. The order does not disclose any concrete material establishing that the alleged violations were genuine. In such a situation, it is difficult to understand how the Executive Engineer could have halted the work merely on the basis of unverified allegations. Every administrative order, particularly by a statutory authority like the SRA, must rest on legal foundation and reliable evidence. When a party is already facing contempt proceedings before this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, such interference by another public authority without legal backing has the potential to obstruct the course of justice.

¶34

The Court therefore expects that the Executive Engineer shall reconsider the order dated 2 July 2025 in accordance with law. This Court hopes that prudence and fairness guide such reconsideration.

¶35

It is necessary to observe that statutory authorities must act with responsibility. Entertaining unverified or politically motivated complaints erodes public faith in administration. When political considerations begin to influence administrative decisions, it not only undermines the rule of law but also hampers the effective

¶36

3

¶37

37-cp-642-2024.doc

¶38

execution of judicial directions. The Executive Engineer shall, therefore, re-examine the matter objectively and take a reasoned decision by the next date of hearing.

¶39

The contemnor shall, on or before the next date, pay a onetime sum of 60,000 to the petitioners. This amount shall be paid₹ exclusively to the petitioners in recognition of the time, effort, and expenses incurred by them in pursuing these proceedings.

¶40

It is clarified that no other slum dwellers shall have any claim over this amount, as the present petitioners alone have borne the burden of litigation and related expenses.

¶41

Having regard to the undertaking dated 15 October 2025 and the assurances contained therein, no further directions are necessary at this stage. All contempt petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶42

However, the matter shall be listed on 17 November 2025 for the limited purpose of verifying compliance with the undertaking and ensuring that the directions of this Court have been duly carried out.

¶43

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶44

4

Mr Uttam M Chandvale v. Haresh K Nanwani and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Uttam M Chandvale v. Haresh K Nanwani and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ibrahim Hussain Raees Sayyed vs State of Maharashtra, Through Malwani Police Station, Through Public Prosecutor

Jamil Ahmed Ansari @ Sameer vs State of Maharashtra

Santosh Jyotiram Talekar vs State of Maharashtra

The Sarswat Welfare Association Throu. Its Hon. Sec. Mangesh Gannarth Chickramane vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Ministry of Co-Op Affairs and Ors.

Mr Ganpat B Asurkar vs Haresh K Nanwani and Ors.

Arjun Shamshersingh Gautam vs the State of Maharashtra