SANTOSH KUMAR GAUD vs APEX GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE SRA MUMBAI — WP/2431/2026
Case under Mah. Slum Areas Act Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 05th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM020123402026
Filing Number
WP/12340/2026
Filing Date
07-Apr-2026
Registration No
WP/2431/2026
Registration Date
13-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak
Bench Type
Division
Category
ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )
Sub-Category
OTHERS ( 99 )
Judicial Branch
Original
Decision Date
05-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 20-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SANTOSH KUMAR GAUD
Adv. Sanjkar Santosh P
Respondent(s)
-
1.APEX GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE SRA MUMBAI
-
2.CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRA
-
3.DEPUTY COLLECTOR (SPECIAL CELL) WS SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY
-
4.ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, EASTERN SUBURB, SLUM REHABILITAION AUTHORITY
-
5.ARADHANA GURUNANAK HOUSING SOCIETY
-
6.ROMEL GROUP (RELIANCE ENTERPRISES) DEVELOPER
-
7.SAYYED ANWAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. ModakView PDF
Case Summary: Santosh Kumar Gaud v. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee to decide Appeal No. 201 of 2025 expeditiously within twelve weeks from the date of order communication. All contentions were kept open, leaving substantive issues unresolved pending the Committee's decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-May-2026
For Circulation
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak
-
07-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/2431/2026
Case Summary: Santosh Kumar Gaud v. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee The Bombay High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee to decide Appeal No. 201 of 2025 expeditiously within twelve weeks from the date of order communication. All contentions were kept open, leaving substantive issues unresolved pending the Committee's decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts