Balbhim Ramchandra Suryawanshi and 4 Other vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ohter — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Balbhim Ramchandra Suryawanshi and 4 Other vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ohter — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief decided. Petitioners left free to seek the appropriate remedy available in law, including approaching Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to seek recall of the 11.11.2008 order on all grounds permissible, and to pursue their representation (page 72 of the Writ Petition); Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 left free to decide on the representation and take it to its logical conclusion in accordance with law; merits, delay and latches expressly kept open; pending interim application, if any, disposed of.

¶¶31 (judgment para 6)

Issue for consideration

Whether the communication/order dated 11.11.2008 issued by Respondent No. 3 (Director BDD Chawl, PWD), whereby tenancy of the subject room went to Respondent No. 5 (brother of the Petitioners), breached principles of natural justice by passing without any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, who claim right in the room as legal heirs of Tulsabai. +1 more

¶¶23 (judgment para 2, contd.)

Court's answer

If the Petitioners claim tenancy rights in the room which is the subject matter of the petition, they are left open to seek the appropriate remedy available in law, including approaching Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for recalling the order on all grounds permissible, and to pursue the representation already made to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶¶25 (judgment para 4)

Ratio / Principle

The Court made no observations, at this juncture, on either contention raised by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 — the merits of the grievance and the delay in filing the petition.

¶¶24 (judgment para 3)

Key takeaways

The aspects of delay and latches, and the merits as raised by learned AGP, are kept open for adjudication before the appropriate forum.ratio¶¶30 (judgment para 5)
It would be open for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to take an appropriate decision on the Petitioners' representation and take it to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.ratio¶¶30 (judgment para 5)
Pending Interim Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of along with the Writ Petition.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), coram M. S. Karnik and S. M. Modak, JJ., on 19.01.2026 disposed of Writ Petition No. 4433 of 2024 (Balbhim Ramchandra Suryawanshi and 4 Others v. The State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.) without deciding anything. The Petitioners' grievance was that an 11.11.2008 communication issued by Respondent No. 3 (Director BDD Chawl, PWD) — also called the impugned order passed on 11.11.2008 — recorded transfer of tenancy of the subject room to Respondent No. 5 (brother of the Petitioners) in breach of principles of natural justice and without any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners, who claim right in the room as legal heirs of Tulsabai. Learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 opposed the petition on merits and on delay in filing; the Court expressly made no observations on either contention at this juncture and kept delay, latches and merits open for adjudication before the appropriate forum. If the Petitioners claim tenancy rights, they are left free to seek the appropriate remedy in law, including approaching Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for recalling the order on all grounds permissible, and to pursue their representation already made to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (at page no. 72 of the Writ Petition); Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in turn are left free to take an appropriate decision on that representation and carry it to its logical conclusion in accordance with law. Pending Interim Application, if any, also stands disposed of. No statute or precedent case is cited in the judgment.

WP 4433 of 2024.doc

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 4433 OF 2024

Balbhim Ramchandra Suryawanshi and 4 Others

...Petitioners

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors. ...Respondents

Adv. Induprakash Tripathi a/w Bhagyashri Gawas - Advocate for the Petitioners

Smt. P. H. Kantharia – GP for the Respondent-State

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 19^th JANUARY 2026

P. C. :-

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners.

The grievance of the Petitioners is that the impugned communication dated 11.11.2008 which was issued by the Respondent No. 3-Director BDD Chawl, PWD was without hearing the

Petitioners, who had interest in the subject room. It is the submission

of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the tenancy has been

Digitally signed SEEMAKSHITIJ by SEEMAKSHITIJYELKARDate: YELKAR 2026.01.23 13:09:37 +0530

1/3

Seema

WP 4433 of 2024.doc

transferred in favour of Respondent Nos. 5-brother of the Petitioners, in breach of principles of natural justice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners though they had right in the subject room being legal heirs of Tulsabai, who is mother of the Petitioners. The impugned order was passed on 11.11.2008.

We have heard learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who opposed this petition on merits and also on ground of delay in filing the petition. We are not making observations on either of the contentions at this juncture.

In our opinion, at this instance of time and in any case, if the Petitioners are claiming tenancy rights in the room which is subject matter of the petition, we leave it open for the Petitioners to seek appropriate remedy available in law including approaching the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 for recalling the order on all grounds permissible. It is submission of the Petitioners that the representation has already been made to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, which is at page no. 72 of the Writ Petition. It is open for the Petitioners to pursue the said representation as well.

We have not made any observations on the aspect of delay and

2/3

Seema

WP 4433 of 2024.doc

latches or on merits as raised by learned AGP and the same are kept open for adjudication before the appropriate forum. It would be open for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to take appropriate decision on the representation and to take the same to it’s logical conclusion in accordance with law.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Pending Interim Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(S. M. MODAK, J.)

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

3/3

Seema