Smt Vimal Manohar Bhartu vs Haresh K Nanwani and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt Vimal Manohar Bhartu vs Haresh K Nanwani and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Acceptance of the contemnor's undertaking dated 15 October 2025 (payment of Rs.15,000 to the petitioners with effect from 1 October 2025, on or before 20 October 2025/Diwali); one-time payment of Rs.60,000 exclusively to the petitioners; disposal of all contempt petitions with listing on 17 November 2025 to verify compliance; expectation that the Executive Engineer, SRA reconsider his order dated 2 July 2025 in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 2 July 2025 passed by the Executive Engineer, SRA, halting the work on the basis of a local MLA's unverified complaint, was sustainable, and whether the Executive Engineer should reconsider and re-examine it. +1 more

Court's answer

Every administrative order, particularly by a statutory authority like the SRA, must rest on legal foundation and reliable evidence; the Executive Engineer could not properly have halted the work merely on the basis of unverified allegations.

Ratio / Principle

When a party is already facing contempt proceedings before this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, interference by another public authority without legal backing has the potential to obstruct the course of justice.

Key takeaways

General observation: statutory authorities must act with responsibility; entertaining unverified or politically motivated complaints erodes public faith in administration, and political considerations influencing administrative decisions undermine the rule of law and hamper effective execution of judicial directions.obiter¶¶35
The Court expects the Executive Engineer to reconsider the order dated 2 July 2025 in accordance with law, and directs that he re-examine the matter objectively and take a reasoned decision by the next date of hearing.ratio¶¶38
Under the undertaking dated 15 October 2025, the contemnor undertook to pay Rs.15,000 to the petitioners with effect from 1 October 2025, the payment to be made before Diwali, i.e., on or before 20 October 2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.), 15 October 2025 — Eight contempt petitions (C.P. Nos.642 to 649 of 2024) by petitioners Vijay Sakharam Gaikar, Akhilesh A Chaubey, Atmaram V. Kotare, Uttam M Chandvale, Vimal Manohar Bhartu, Jadavati Gulabshankar Pande, Bhashkar D Mistry and Ganpat B. Asurkar against Haresh K Nanwani & Ors. disposed of upon the contemnor's undertaking dated 15.10.2025 to pay Rs.15,000 to the petitioners with effect from 01.10.2025 (before Diwali, on or before 20.10.2025) and a further one-time payment of Rs.60,000 exclusively to the petitioners, with no claim for other slum dwellers. Holding that every administrative order, particularly by a statutory authority like the SRA, must rest on legal foundation and reliable evidence, the Court found the Executive Engineer's order dated 02.07.2025 halting the work rested on a local MLA's general, unverified complaint unsupported by verified facts or judicial directions; observed that interference by a public authority without legal backing while contempt proceedings under Article 215 of the Constitution are pending can obstruct the course of justice, and that entertaining unverified or politically motivated complaints erodes public faith in administration. The Executive Engineer was expected to reconsider the order dated 02.07.2025 in accordance with law and directed to re-examine the matter objectively and take a reasoned decision by the next date of hearing. Matter listed on 17.11.2025 solely to verify compliance.

37-cp-642-2024.doc

Shabnoor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN

Digitally signed by SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2025.10.15 17:19:10 +0530

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.642 OF 2024

Vijay Sakharam Gaikar … Petitioner V/s. Haresh K Nanwani & Ors. … Respondents

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.643 OF 2024 Akhilesh A Chaubey … Petitioner V/s. Haresh K Nanwani & Ors. … Respondents

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.644 OF 2024 Atmaram V. Kotare … Petitioner V/s. Haresh K Nanwani & Ors. … Respondents

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.645 OF 2024 Uttam M Chandvale … Petitioner V/s. Haresh K Nanwani & Ors. … Respondents

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.646 OF 2024 Vimal Manohar Bhartu … Petitioner V/s. Haresh K Nanwani & Ors. … Respondents

1

37-cp-642-2024.doc

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.647 OF 2024

Jadavati Gulabshankar Pande … Petitioner V/s.

Haresh K Nanwani & Ors. … Respondents

WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.648 OF 2024

Bhashkar D Mistry … Petitioner V/s. Haresh K Nanwani & Ors. … Respondents

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.649 OF 2024

Ganpat B. Asurkar … Petitioner V/s. Haresh K Nanwani & Ors. … Respondents

Mr. Yuvraj D. Patil, for the petitioner in all Cps.

Mr. Kishor Patil i/b Rajeev Sharma, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in all CPs.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : OCTOBER 15, 2025

P.C.:

The contemnor has filed an undertaking dated 15 October 2025. The same is taken on record and accepted.

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

2

37-cp-642-2024.doc

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).

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.

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.

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

3

37-cp-642-2024.doc

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

4