Partly allowed

Rehana Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Government Pleader

Bombay HC17 Mar 2026WP/3938/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged two appellate orders from housing development authority which decided the matter on merits without addressing preliminary objections regarding limitation and maintainability. Court relied on Supreme Court precedent to quash orders and remand.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 6th June 2025 and 7th November 2024 quashed; Appeal No. 466 of 2023 remanded to Additional Collector for fresh hearing addressing limitation and maintainability.

Rehana Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra Thorugh… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

24.WP/3938/2025 Rehana Vs. State

¶2

Digitally signed by AMOL AMOL PREMNATH PREMNATH JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2026.03.24 11:13:52 +0530

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3938 OF 2025

¶5

Rehana Shaikh … Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. A.N. Giri a/w. Mr. Sagar Batavia for Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Vrushali Kabre , learned AGP for Respondent nos. 1 to 3 – State.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.

¶10

DATE : 17^th MARCH 2026

¶11

ORDER.:

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties the matter is taken up for final disposal today.

¶13

The present Writ Petition challenges an order dated 6^th June 2025 passed by Grievance Redressal Committee - Respondent no. 2 herein in Appeal No. 226 of 2024 and an earlier order dated 7^th November 2024 passed by the Additional Collector and Appellate Authority - Respondent no. 3 herein in Appeal No. 466 of 2023.

¶14

A perusal of the record would reveal that Appeal No. 466 of 2023 came to be filed by Shivshakti Builders and Developers - Respondent no. 6 herein who sought to challenge an order dated 24^th August 2017

¶15

Page 1 of 6 ------------------------------------Order dated 17^th March 2026

¶16

24.WP/3938/2025 Rehana Vs. State

¶17

passed by Deputy Collector – Competent Authority, Malad – 3. The said Appeal was belatedly filed only in 28^th February 2023.

¶18

Considering this, the Petitioner herein raised preliminary objections seeking dismissal of the said Appeal including inter alia on the ground of maintainability by alleging that the same was filed by the Developer – Respondent no. 6 herein who is not an “aggrieved person” and therefore, not entitled to file the said Appeal and the other, and the more important ground for the purposes of the present Writ Petition, that the said Appeal was barred by the law of limitation since the same was preferred after more than five years from the passing of the order dated 24^th August 2017 impugned therein and there was no application filed seeking condonation of delay.

¶19

After the matter was argued before Respondent no. 3, written submissions were also filed by the Petitioner. A perusal of the written submissions dated 4^th November 2024 clearly reveal that the written submissions were made on the preliminary objections raised by the Petitioner on the maintainability of the Appeal. In the said written submissions also, the Petitioner has expressly raised both the points that are adverted to hereinabove, including the point of the Appeal being barred by limitation.

¶20

Notwithstanding this express ground being raised by the

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

24.WP/3938/2025 Rehana Vs. State

¶24

Petitioner, Respondent no. 3 appears to have proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 7^th November 2024. In the bargain, he has failed to adjudicate upon and decide the preliminary objections raised by the Petitioner herein inasmuch as, in the said order, there is no reference whatsoever to the plea of limitation that was raised by the Petitioner. Instead, Respondent no. 3 has proceeded to decide the matter on merits and passed the impugned order dated 7^th November 2024.

¶25

Being aggrieved by this order, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Grievance Redressal Committee - Respondent no. 2 herein being Appeal number DESK/SLUM – 226 of 2024 in which the Petitioner has once again taken the said grounds of defence which include the plea of limitation. Even before Respondent no. 2, the Petitioner filed written submissions dated 4^th November 2024 in which the said grounds of defence have been specifically raised by him. Notwithstanding this, Respondent no. 2 has also proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 6^th June 2025, and decided the matter on merits without applying its mind and dealing with the issue of limitation and maintainability that were squarely raised by the Petitioner. There is no discussion on and/or adjudication of the plea of limitation and maintainability raised by the Petitioner or the fact that no condonation of delay application was preferred by the Developer – Respondent no. 6 hererin before Respondent no. 3. Despite this, Respondent no. 2 has rejected the said

¶26

Page 3 of 6

¶27

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

¶28

24.WP/3938/2025 Rehana Vs. State

¶29

Appeal without recording any finding on the said issues specifically raised by the Petitioner.

¶30

Mr. A N. Giri, learned counsel who appears on behalf of the Petitioner is at pains to point out that both the impugned orders have been passed by Respondent nos. 2 and 3, without considering the said grounds of defence raised by him. My attention is invited to an order passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs . Somdeb Bandyopadhayay & Ors.¹ in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of matters being heard and decided on merits, when there is delay in filing the application and without such delay first being considered and condoned.

¶31

After hearing the parties and going through the record, from a bare perusal of the two impugned orders dated 7^th November 2024 and 6^th June 2025, it is evident that the same do not deal with and/or consider the issue of limitation and maintainability that have been squarely raised by the Petitioner herein before, Respondent nos. 2 and 3. More so, from the record that is filed before this Court, it appears that no application for condonation of delay in preferring the Appeal before Respondent no. 3 was ever filed by the Developer – Respondent no. 6 herein. In these circumstances, without deciding such vital issues which go to the root of the matter, and touches the

¶32

1 (2009) 2 SCC 694

¶33

Page 4 of 6 ------------------------------------Order dated 17^th March 2026

¶34

24.WP/3938/2025 Rehana Vs. State

¶35

very maintainability of the Appeal, Respondent nos. 2 and 3 ought not to have ignored the same and instead proceeded to decide the matter on merits without recording any finding thereon. The decision of the Apex Court in Somdeb Bandyopadhayay (supra) would also squarely apply to the facts of the present case.

¶36

Considering this, the Writ Petition is required to be allowed and the following order is accordingly passed:

¶37

:: ORDER ::

¶38

(i) The impugned order dated 6^th June 2025 passed by Grievance Redressal Committee - Respondent no. 2 in Appeal No. 226 of 2024 and order dated 7^th November 2024 passed by the Additional Collector and the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 466 of 2023 are both, hereby quashed and set aside

¶39

(ii) Appeal No. 466 of 2023 is remanded back to Respondent no. 3 who shall hear and decide the same afresh on the basis of the record before it including the written submissions dated 4^th November 2024 filed by the Petitioner herein.

¶40

(iii) Notice of hearing shall be afforded to the Petitioner and he shall also be heard before Respondent no. 3 passes any order thereon. The said Appeal shall be heard and disposed of by

¶41

Page 5 of 6

¶42

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

¶43

24.WP/3938/2025 Rehana Vs. State

¶44

the Respondent no. 3 as expeditiously as possible and in any event before 30^th April 2026.

¶45

(iv) Present Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the

¶46

above order with no order as to costs.

¶47

( FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. )

¶48

Ajay Jadhav

¶49

Page 6 of 6

¶50

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

Rehana Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Government Pleader

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rehana Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Government Pleader

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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