Kartikeya v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Slum Act, 1971 s. 35
Judgment
Mr. Raj K. Awasthi a/w Mr. Bushra Sayed & Arif Khan i/b Ms. Pragya Mishra, for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w Mr. Abhishek Roy, Mr. Shreyas Zarkar & Mr. Gaurav Shahane, for the Respondent No.1-SRA. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent/State. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 14 JANUARY 2025. P.C. : 1) Petitioners have challenged the order dated 19 January 2024 passed by Chief Executive Officer (Slum Rehabilitation Authority) terminating its appointment under provisions of Section 13(2) of The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act). Under provisions of Section 35 of the Slum Act, 1971, there is an alternate and equally efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC). In that view of the matter, I am not ___Page No. 1 of 2 ___ 14 January 2025 Kartikeya inclined to entertain the present Petition. Leaving open liberty to the Petitioner to file an appeal before the AGRC. Writ Petition is disposed of. 2) All contentions on merits raised in the Petition are expressly kept open. 3) The time spent in prosecuting the Petition shall be considered while deciding the issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] ___Page No. 2 of 2 ___ 14 January 2025
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Slum Act, 1971 — s. 35.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 14 Jan 2025. The bench was SANDEEP V MARNE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.