Prakash Rudrapratap Singh vs the State of Maharashtra

¶1

914.WP1068_2025.DOC

¶2

2025:BHC-OS:18267-DB

¶3

Vidya Amin

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1469 OF 2023 WITH

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 19636 OF 2023

¶7

Asha Kashinath Mhatre & Ors. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 22292 OF 2024 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 19636 OF 2023 ... Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. Applicants Versus Asha Kashinath Mhatre ... Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1068 OF 2025 Gulshan Mohammed Salim Chouhan ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1101 OF 2025 Siraj Mehboob Chouhan ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1115 OF 2025 Jayesh Yashwant Hatnolkar ... Petitioner Versus ... The State of Maharashtra, through GP Respondent

Page 1 of 6

914.WP1068_2025.DOC

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 1127 OF 2025

¶12

Parmatma Kanhaiya Mishra ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1074 OF 2025 Shuri Laxmi S. ... Petitioner Versus ... The State of Maharashtra, through GP Respondent

¶13

WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 1065 OF 2025

¶15

Ravindra Kishav Rawale ... Petitioner Versus ... The State of Maharashtra, through GP Respondent

¶16

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1102 OF 2025

¶17

Premsingh Chandrasingh Bisht ... Petitioner Versus ... The State of Maharashtra, through GP Respondent

¶18

WITH

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO. 1066 OF 2025

¶20

Chandrakant Balgonda Patil ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶21

WITH

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO. 1033 OF 2025

¶23

Tushar Manohar Penkar ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

Page 2 of 6

914.WP1068_2025.DOC

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 1100 OF 2025

¶28

Sanjay Ramji Naik ... Versus The State of Maharashtra ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1040 OF 2025	Petitioner Respondent
Saraswati Bahadursingh Patwal ... Versus	Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra ...	Respondent

¶29

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1092 OF 2025

¶30

Sheetal Sitaram Revale ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶31

WITH

¶32

WRIT PETITION NO. 1113 OF 2025

¶33

Prakash Rudrapratap Singh ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶34

Mr. Anand Mishra i/b. A.M. Saraogi for the petitioner in WP/1469/2023. Mr. G.B. Naik for the petitioner in WP/1068/2025, WP/1101/2025, WP/1115/2025, WP/1127/2025, WP/1074/2025, WP/1065/2025, WP/1102/2025, WP/1066/2025, WP/1033/2025, WP/1100/2025, WP/1040/2025, WP/1092/2025, WP/1113/2025.

¶35

Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad(Reddy) for the respondent-SRA. Ms. Pushpa Yadav for the MCGM.

¶36

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Amogh Singh, Mr. Santosh Pathak, Mr. Nimish Lotlikar, Mr. Deepesh Kadam i/b. Santosh Pathak for respondent no. 5 in WP/1469/2023.

¶37

Mr. Mohit Jadhav, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 3-State in IAL/22292/2024.

¶38

Mr. Suraj Gupte, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2-State in WP/1068/2025. Ms. Nazia Sheikh, AGP for respondent no. 1 and 2-State in WP/1101/2025 and WP/1092/2025.

¶39

Mr. Atul Vanarse, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2-State in WP/1115/2025.

¶40

Mr. Vishal Thadani, Addl. GP for respondent nos. 1 and 2-State in WP/1127/2025

Page 3 of 6

914.WP1068_2025.DOC

& WP/1100/2025.

Ms. Gaurangi Patil, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2-State in WP/1074/2025. Ms. Vaishali Choudhari, Addl. G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2-State in WP/1065/2025.

¶45

Ms. Varsha Sawant, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 2-State in WP/1102/2025. Mr. Rakesh Pathak, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2-State in WP/1066/2025. Mr. Manish Upadhye, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2-State in WP/1033/2025. Ms. Vrushali Kabre, AGP for respondent nos. 1 & 2-State in WP/1113/2025.

¶46

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ.

¶47

DATE: 1 October, 2025

¶48

P.C.

¶49

Writ Petition No. 1469 of 2023 is filed under Article 226 of the

¶50

Constitution praying for the following reliefs:

¶51

“a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and direction directing the respondent nos. 1 to 4 to quash the alleged lottery alleged to have been held in the month of November, 2022 and act purely on the guidelines set down by order dated 21 September, 2015 being Exhibit B on such terms as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶52

b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order and direction directing the respondent nos. 1 to 4 not to allow the respondent no. 5 to either carry out construction of any sale components or dispose of the same until all the eligible occupants of the original plot of land are accommodated in their permanent alternate accommodation.”

¶53

The proceedings were heard on the earlier occasions and are listed today, as

¶54

there is consensus between the petitioner and respondent no. 5, which is placed on

¶55

record in terms of the Minutes of Order as agreed between the parties, which are to

¶56

the following effect:

“MINUTES OF ORDER

Page 4 of 6

914.WP1068_2025.DOC

The petitioners in the aforesaid petition are challenging the lottery for allotment of permanent alternate premises in the Rehab Building No. C-1 and C-2 ( “said Buildings” ) constructed by respondent no. 5, the Developer at Daulat Nagar.

¶61

The said lottery was conducted on 18^th August, 2023 with respect to the 138 members as per Seniority List of Slum dwellers who had vacated their structures in the year 2003. The respondent no. 5 has also obtained the Occupation Certificate for the said buildings. However, this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 4^th August, 2023 directed the SRA not to put an person in possession in the said buildings after the lottery, without first reporting to this Court and/or without a further order of this Court.

¶62

So far the grievance of the petitioners with respect to rehabilitation is concerned, respondent no. 5 states that it has completed the construction of extension of Building no. C-1 and C-2 with 112 units (“said Extension Building ”) and shall be making application for obtaining Occupation Certificate within a period of 2 weeks.

¶63

In view thereof, to resolve the overall dispute raised in the present petition as well as in the group of petitions by the concerned petitioners, the respondent no.5 shall prepare the list of slum dwellers by including the name of the petitioners, in the proposed lottery with respect to the said Extension Building, wherein all the petitioners along with the other Slum Dwellers can be accommodated and the grievance of the petitioners qua the rehabilitation can be resolved. Upon submission of list of names for conducting lottery, by respondent no. 5 in the SRA, the SRA shall consider their names in the final list of lottery for the purpose of rehabilitation in the said Extension Building in a period of 4 weeks.

¶64

So far the allotment of 138 members, as per the lottery conducted on 18 August, 2023 is concerned, the respondent no. 5 with the support of SRA, can handover possession of the Permanent Alternate Accommodation in the said buildings.

¶65

It is the case of the petitioners, which is agreed to by respondent no. 5 that the petitioners are entitled to be rehabilitated on the basis of “ first out & first in policy ” for being accommodated in the said extension building. The said aspect will be verified by SRA and a list shall be prepared in accordance with circular 162. The SRA is directed to complete the entire exercise within a period 4 weeks from today and submit a compliance report in this Court.”

¶66

Page 5 of 6

¶67

914.WP1068_2025.DOC

¶68

Apart from this petition, there are 13 other companion petitions. Learned counsel for the parties agree that subject to whatever has been agreed in paragraph 6 of the Minutes of the Order (supra), these petitions, subject to the exercise which would now be undertaken by the SRA, can be disposed of keeping open all the rights and contentions of the parties. Mr. Reddy, learned counsel for SRA would also not be averse that such exercise would now be required to be undertaken.

¶69

In this view of the matter, we are inclined to dispose of these proceedings in terms of the Minutes of the Order, however, insofar as the companion petitions are concerned, keeping open all rights and contentions and subject to the exercise which would be undertaken by SRA as set out in paragraph 6 of the Minutes of Order.

¶70

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶71

(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶72

Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/10/2025 20:12:10

¶73

Page 6 of 6

Prakash Rudrapratap Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Rudrapratap Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Ravindra Kishav Rawale vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt.Pleader

Chandrakant Balgonda Patil vs the State of Maharashtra

Churi Laxmi S vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader

Supriya Sudhir Tawade vs Bombay Development Department

Prakash Pundalik Shertate vs Harresh N Mehta

Jayesh Yashwant Hatnolkar vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader