Pragati Enterprises vs the Slum Rehabilitation Authority through Its CEO and 16 Ors.

“a. This Hon’ble Court by issuing writ, order or direction be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to decide the application dated 28 October 2025;

¶24

b. This Hon’ble High Court by issuing writ, order or direction be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned notice for the eviction dated 20 October 2025;”

¶25

An application as moved on behalf of the petitioner seeking urgent orders in

¶26

regard to stay of action being resorted in pursuance of notice dated 20 October

¶27

Page 1 of 3 18 December 2025

¶28

Kiran Kawre

¶29

503-WPL-35819-2025.DOC

¶30

2025, which was issued in view of the order dated 7 May 2025 passed under Section 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short "the Slum Act"), directing evection of the petitioner to enable the Slum Rehabilitation Project to be taken forward, as the structures of the petitioners are causing a hindrance.

¶31

We find from the averments as made in the petition, that there is an eviction action was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act. On such proceedings, a final order dated 7 May 2025 came to be passed. The said order appears to have been challenged by the petitioner by approaching the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee. The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee has passed an order dated 3 July 2025, the petitioner has already filed a Writ Petition (L) No. 21644 of 2025, Writ Petition (St.) No. 19148 of 2025 and Writ Petition No.25706 of 2025, assailing the orders passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, the said petition was required to be pursued. However, Mr. Singh, learned counsel for Applicant, on instructions, submits that the said petitions were dismissed for default, and it is for such reason, the present petition has been filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, a second petition for such prayer would not be maintainable.

¶32

The real cause of action for the petitioner was to assail the orders passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, as the impugned notice, which is subject matter of prayer clause (b) (supra), is a notice issued in pursuance of the evection

¶33

Page 2 of 3 18 December 2025

¶34

Kiran Kawre

¶35

503-WPL-35819-2025.DOC

¶36

order as passed against petitioner, which itself is the subject matter of challenge in the proceedings pending before the learned Single Judge.

¶37

Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. The petition is dismissed, however, with liberty to the petitioner to pursue writ petitions which are

¶38

filed before the learned Single Judge, assailing an orders passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee.

¶39

All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.

¶40

Ad-interim orders dated 13 November 2025 shall continue for a period of two weeks to enable the petitioner to obtain appropriate orders. However, it is no expression on the merits of the rival contentions.

¶41

At this stage, we are informed by Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the SRA, that in the meantime a fresh notice dated 10 December 2025 was inadvertently issued, however, by subsequent communication dated 18 December 2025, the said notice has been withdrawn. In this view of the matter, Contempt Petition (L) No. 41386 of 2025 also is not required to taken forward it stands disposed of.

¶42

Intervention Application also would not survive, it is also disposed of.

¶43

No costs.

¶44

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

¶45

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶46

Page 3 of 3 18 December 2025

¶47

Kiran Kawre

Pragati Enterprises v. the Slum Rehabilitation Authority through Its CEO and 16 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pragati Enterprises v. the Slum Rehabilitation Authority through Its CEO and 16 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

Similar cases

Ajay Jaiswal vs State of Maharashtra through Department of Housing

Suresh Rakhmaji Gaikwad (Since Deceased through His Wife) Nirmala Suresh Gaikwad vs the Secretary Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Suryoday Co-Opeerative Housing Society vs Chetan Samajik Pratishtahan and Ors.

Bhim Nagar Vikas Mandal through Udhav Talware and 2 Ors. vs Hubtown Limited (Formerly Known as Akruti City Ltd. Akruti Nirman Pvt. Ltd.) and 3 Ors.

Manohar Dairy through Manoharsingh Bhagatsingh Chabra vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Lourdinha S Dsouza Alias Lourdina D Souza vs the Chief Executive Officer Sra and 2 Ors.