Salma Yusuf Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader

The present Writ Petition challenges an order dated 30^th April 2025 passed by Respondent no. 2 - Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in Appeal No. 225 of 2024 and the earlier order dated 13^th November 2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Appellate Authority – Respondent no. 3. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that no notice of the Appeal before Respondent no. 3 was given to her. As a result, the Petitioner was constrained to address a letter dated 11^th November 2024 to Respondent no. 3 informing him that till date, neither was she served with any notice of hearing nor a copy of the Appeal was provided to

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

------------------------------------Order dated 17^th March 2026

¶18

22-wp-3894-2025 Salma Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra

¶19

her. Accordingly, Respondent no. 3 was requested not to proceed with the hearing until papers were provided to the Petitioner and adequate notice was given to her of the said hearing. A perusal of the said letter, which is annexed at Exhibit ‘E’ to the present Writ Petition, would reveal that the same was received by the office of Respondent no. 3, on 11^th November 2024, which fact is evident from the rubber stamp and signature which is appearing on this letter. Notwithstanding this letter, Respondent no. 3 appears to have proceeded to hold a hearing and thereafter passed the impugned order under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (the Slum Act) on 13^th November 2024. Naturally, the Petitioner was not present or represented at this hearing.

¶20

Being aggrieved by this order dated 13^th November 2024, the Petitioner approached the Grievance Redressal Committee - Respondent no. 2 by filing an Appeal No. 225 of 2024. The matter was finally heard on 21^st March 2025, after which the Petitioner also filed written submissions on 3^rd April 2025. In these written submissions, the Petitioner has specifically taken a ground to the effect that no notice of the hearing before Respondent no. 3 was afforded to her. She has further asserted that the paper book of the Appeal that was filed by the developer was also not received by her.

¶21

Despite the said written submissions being considered by Respondent no. 2 in the impugned order, this assertion of the Petitioner

¶22

Page 2 of 4 ------------------------------------Order dated 17^th March 2026

¶23

22-wp-3894-2025 Salma Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra

¶24

appears to have been completely overlooked, inasmuch as there is no mention of the same in the impugned order that was passed on 30^th April 2025. In the circumstances, Respondent no. 2, whilst completely ignoring this vital aspect of notice to the Petitioner, has proceeded to adjudicate the matter on merits and rejected the Appeal that was preferred by the Petitioner.

¶25

After hearing submissions advanced by the parties today and on going through the record, I am of the view that, considering the fact that the Petitioner was not given notice of the hearing before Respondent no. 3 and which allegation, though raised before Respondent no. 2 has not been dealt in the impugned order dated 30^th April 2025. Therefore, both the impugned orders are required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remitted back to Respondent no. 3 for deciding Appeal No. 1993 of 2024 afresh after affording an adequate opportunity to the Petitioner to remain present and advance her submissions.

¶26

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶27

::ORDER::

¶28

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and the impugned orders dated 30^th April 2025 passed by Respondent no. 2 and impugned order dated 13^th November 2024

¶29

passed by Respondent no. 3 are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

------------------------------------Order dated 17^th March 2026

¶32

22-wp-3894-2025 Salma Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra

¶33

(ii) The Additional Collector and the Appellate Authority – Respondent no. 3 shall hear and decide Appeal No. 1993 of 2024 after giving due notice of such hearing to the Petitioner herein and pass an order thereon, as expeditiously as possible and preferably, on or before 30^th April 2026.

¶34

Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions with no order as to costs.

¶35

( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )

¶36

Amol

¶37

Page 4 of 4

¶38

------------------------------------Order dated 17^th March 2026

Salma Yusuf Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salma Yusuf Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader

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

Ayaaz Amirali Fazulbhoy vs Minaz Ayaaz Fazulbhoy and 12 Ors.

Rajkumar Ramchandra Mishra vs Suresh Ramchandra Mishra

Shireen Nader Bharucha vs Eruch Shahpurji Variava

In and Out Advertising through Their Constituted Attorney Mr. Rahul Nair vs the Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai

Adrian Caitan Miranda, through Constituted Attorney Yasmin S. Patel vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Prakash Tavji Lad vs the State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader