Disposed¶19

Sai Miracle Developers Throu. Its Partner Anil Balkrishna Bhangadia v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Housing Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Jan 2026WP/17180/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sai Miracle Developers v. State of Maharashtra; Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction; Writ Petition No. 17180 of 2025; decision 30 January 2026; G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.; Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) order dated 31 July 2025; status quo direction till further order of Hon'ble High Court; Letters Patent Appeal No. 108 of 2013; status quo vacated per observations in LPA judgment; grievance no longer survives; no further adjudication; contentions kept open before AGRC; disposed of; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The status quo order passed by the AGRC has already been vacated in terms of the observations made in this Court's judgment while deciding the Letters Patent Appeal. ¶17

Sai Miracle Developers Throu. Its Partner Anil Balkrishna Bhangadia vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Housing Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

6.WP17180_2025.DOC

¶2

2026:BHC-AS:6531-DB

¶3

Vidya Amin

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 17180 OF 2025

¶6

Sai Miracle Developers … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Aseem Naphade i/b. Abhishek Deshmukh for the petitioner. Smt. V.R. Raje, AGP for the State. Mr. Nishigandh Patil for respondent no. 2/SRA. Ms. P.H. Kantharia for respondent no. 3-AGRC Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for respondent no. 4-PCMC. Mr. Mayuresh Ingale for respondent no. 5.

¶8

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 30 JANUARY 2026

¶9

P.C.

¶10

This Writ Petition assails the order dated 31 July, 2025 passed by the

¶11

Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC). The proceedings are pending. What is urged by Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the AGRC has directed the parties to maintain status quo, having regard to the orders passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 108 of 2013, which has been decided by us today. The said order passed by the AGRC is required to be noted, which reads thus:

¶12

“5. Considering the aofesaid submissions and the order passed by Hon’ble High Court in LPA No. 108 of 2013, parties to the present Appeal are directed to maintain status quo till further order of Hon’ble High Court.”

¶13

Admittedly, the proceedings are pending before the AGRC. The grievance

¶14

of the petitioner was confined only to the order of status quo. However, the said

¶15

Page 1 of 2 30 January 2026

¶16

6.WP17180_2025.DOC

¶17

status quo order has already been vacated in terms of the observations made in our judgment while deciding the Letters Patent Appeal.

¶18

In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the grievance of the petitioner no longer survives insofar as the status quo granted by this Court is concerned. The petition hence does not require further adjudication. All contentions of the parties are kept open to be agitated before the AGRC.

¶19

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

¶20

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

¶21

Page 2 of 2 30 January 2026

¶22

Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 09/02/2026 15:29:32

Sai Miracle Developers Throu. Its Partner Anil Balkrishna Bhangadia v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Housing Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Miracle Developers Throu. Its Partner Anil Balkrishna Bhangadia v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Housing Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pushpa Sahablal Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra Th. Govt. Pleader, High Court Bombay

Om Vishwashanti Chs (Proposed) through His Chief Promoter vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation Thrugh Municipal Commissioner

Shirsal Matnale S/O Shivappa Matnale vs the State of Maharashtra

Tulsidas Nair vs Ttate of Maharashtra

Ramcharitra Jaynandan Yadav vs New Ajmera Construction

Minara Fabtex vs Union of India and Ors.