Himanshu Dwarkadas Ruparelia vs State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

“(a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent no.2 (CEO, SRA) to decide representation in the form of complaint dated 26.12.2024 filed before it on merits;

¶15

(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for records and proceedings in respect for impugned LOI dated 26.10.2015 issued by Respondent no.2 and after examining the legality and validity of the same, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and/or set aside the impugned LOI dated 26.10.2015;

¶16

MANISH Digitally signed byMANISH SURESHRAO SURESHRAO THATTE THATTE Date: 2025.10.1610:47:18 +0530

¶17

(c) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of certiorari or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondent no.2 (CEO, SRA) to initiate the action by issuing show cause notice pursuant to the complainant dated 26-122024 issued by the Petitioner”

Page 1 of 3

Manish Thatte

302.WP.3740.2025.DOC

The Petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the inaction on the part of Respondent no.2 i.e. Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in not deciding their representation dated 26^th December 2024 wherein the Petitioner has raised a grievance that the letter of intent (LOI) dated 26^th October 2015 issued by Respondent no.2 SRA approving a slum rehabilitation scheme on the Petitioner’s leasehold property has been made without obtaining Petitioner’s mandatory no objection certificate as required under Sections 3, 5 11, 12 and 13 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (`the Slum Act’) which is causing grave prejudice to the Petitioner. It is the Petitioner’s contention that the letter of intent which has been issued in favour of M/s.Vastu Nirman Realtors dated 26^th October 2025 has been issued without calling the Petitioner for hearing or his objections and hence the Petitioner has made representation dated 26^th December 2024 before Respondent no.2 SRA which is pending consideration.

¶22

The anxiety of the Petitioner is that such representation needs to be taken to its logical conclusion and the same therefore ought to be looked into and decided expeditiously in accordance with law.

¶23

In our view, considering the limited relief that the Petitioner seeks in the petition and although there being no written opposition/reply of the Respondents, considering the nature of the orders we propose to pass, no prejudice would be caused to the Respondents. The following order would serve the ends of

justice :

Page 2 of 3

Manish Thatte

302.WP.3740.2025.DOC

ORDER

(i) Respondent no.2 SRA shall consider and decide the pending representation dated 26^th December 2024 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date this order is made available to the said Respondent by the Petitioner;

¶30

(ii) Let all parties be heard;

¶31

(iii) The writ petition is disposed of in terms of prayer clause (a). No costs.

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Page 3 of 3

Manish Thatte

Himanshu Dwarkadas Ruparelia v. State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Dwarkadas Ruparelia v. State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

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

Mangesh S Dhoke vs the Assi. Commissioner

V Ships India Private Limited vs Union of India

V ships India Private Limited vs Union of India

Shridhar Ramdas Mahadik vs Manager/Director, Bombay Development Department of Chawls and 2 Ors.

Sarathi Shelter Builders and Developers vs Apex Grievance Redressal Committee

Shiv Sai Developer vs Chief Executive Officer Slum Rehabilitation Authority