Prakash Arjunlal Ameta vs the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Prakash Arjunlal Ameta vs the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No direct allotment granted. The Court directed respondent No.1 (Chief Executive Officer, SRA) to examine the petitioners' representations at paper-book pages 99 and 105 and decide on allotment of the rehab tenement in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case within six weeks from 17/06/2026, hearing the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 if necessary; appearance fixed for 17/06/2026 at 11:00 a.m.; decision may be taken by respondent No.1 himself or a delegated competent authority; all contentions kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the rehab tenement should be allotted to the petitioner as per seniority, the petitioner having vacated the slum structure prior in time to respondent Nos.5 and 6. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.1, the Chief Executive Officer, SRA, was requested to look into the representations at pages 99 and 105 of the paper-book.

Key takeaways

The respondent No.1 was to decide on the representations made by the petitioners for allotment of the rehab tenement in accordance with law, expeditiously and in any case within a period of six weeks from 17/06/2026.ratio¶4
If necessary, the decision was to be taken after hearing the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.5 and 6.ratio¶4
The petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 were required to appear before the respondent No.1 on 17/06/2026 at 11:00 a.m.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), W.P. No.5394 of 2025, M. S. Karnik & S. M. Modak, JJ., 9th June 2026 (P.C.). Petitioners, claiming to have vacated their slum structure prior in time to respondent Nos.5 and 6, sought allotment of the rehab tenement as per seniority; counsel for respondent No.6 stated the tenement was allotted to respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 01/02/2024, and the SRA had not decided the petitioners' representations of 27/02/2024 (paper-book pages 99 and 105) notwithstanding their seniority. The Court did not itself adjudicate entitlement: disposing of the writ petition with all contentions open, it requested respondent No.1 (Chief Executive Officer, SRA) to look into the representations and decide on allotment of the rehab tenement in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case within six weeks from 17/06/2026, if necessary after hearing the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6; both sides were to appear before respondent No.1 on 17/06/2026 at 11:00 a.m.; the decision could be taken by respondent No.1 himself or by any competent authority delegated by him.

2026:BHC-OS:12645-DB

Bhogale 23.wp-5394-2025.odt

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

WRIT PETITION NO.5394 OF 2025

Prakash Arjunlal Ameta and anr. … Petitioners Versus The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and ors. .… Respondents

Adv. Nitin Gaware Patil a/w Adv. Harsh Rathod, for the petitioners.

Adv. Yashi Bhatt i/b. Adv. Ravleen Sabharwal, for the respondentSRA.

Adv. S. S. Redekar, for respondent No.6.

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

DATE : 9^th JUNE 2026

P.C. :

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner seeks various reliefs as prayed for in this

writ petition. Mainly the relief is prayed that the rehab tenement

may be allotted to the petitioner as per seniority, as the petitioner

had vacated the slum structure prior in time to the respondent

Nos.5 and 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submitted that

1

Bhogale 23.wp-5394-2025.odt

the rehab tenement was allotted to the respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 01/02/2024.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though

the representations were made by the petitioners to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) on 27/02/2024 which are at page 99 and 105 of the paper-book, the SRA has not taken any decision thereon despite the fact that the petitioners are senior to the respondent Nos.5 and 6.

We have requested the learned counsel to appear on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2-SRA. In such view of the matter, the respondent No.1-The Chief Executive Officer, SRA is requested to look into the representations which are at page 99 and 105 of the paper-book and if necessary after hearing the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.5 and 6, decide on the representations made by the petitioners for allotment of the rehab tenement in accordance with law expeditiously and in any case within a period of six weeks from 17/06/2026. The petitioners as

well as respondent Nos.5 and 6 shall appear before the respondent

No.1 on 17/06/2026 at 11:00 a.m. It is open for the respondent

2

Bhogale 23.wp-5394-2025.odt

No.1 himself to decide the representations or by any competent

authority delegated by him.

Keeping all contentions open, the writ petition is disposed of.

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 10/06/2026 12:05:17

3