Bombay High Court
Mahavirdham Co-Operative Housing … vs The State Of Maharashtra Through , … on 31 July, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
908.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.19059 OF 2025
Star Construction ...Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 2419 OF 2025
Mahavirdham Co-op. Hsg.Scty (Proposed) & Anr. ...Petitioners
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.21733 OF 2025
Ashok Nagar Rahivashi & Vyapari Co-op. Hsg.
Society (Prop) ...Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
AND
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.19980 OF 2025
Ajit Nagar SRA Co-op.Hsg.Scty. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Vs
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
__________
Mr. Vikramjit Garewal i/b Mr. Kripashankar A. Dubey for Petitioner in
WP/2419/2025.
Mr. Pravin Samdani, Sr. Adv. a/w Mr. Arun Panickar, Mr. Milind Nar, Ms. Pinki
Yadav, Mr. Mandar Joshi i/b Mr. Milind Nar for Petitioner in WPL/19059/2025.
Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Sr. Adv. a./w Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Mr. Nitin G.
Raut, Mrs. G. P. Vas and Ms.Sunita Serrao i/b P. Vas & Co. For Petitioner in
WPL/21733/2025 and for R. No. 4 & 5 inWPL/19059/2025.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Aditya Miskita, Mr. Nivit Srivastava, Mr. Yash
Chheda, Mr. Rohit Bamne and Mr. Bhavya R. Shah, Ms. Samita Hadkar i/b
Maniar Srivastava Associates for Petitioner in WPL/19980/2025.
Dr. Birendra Saraf, A. G. a/w Mr. Vaibhav Charalwar, 'B' Panel Counsel, Mr.
Prashant Kamble, AGP for State in WP/2419/2025.
Dr. Birendra Saraf, A. G. a/w Mr. Vaibhav Charalwar, 'B' Panel Counsel, Ms.
Page 1 of 14
31 July 2025
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2025 22:22:44 :::
908.DOC
Jaymala Ostwal, Addl. G. P. for State in WPL/2419/2025.
Ms. Varsha Sawant , AGP for Stae in WPL/19980/2025.
Mr. S. B. Gore, AGP for State in WPL/21733/2025.
Ms. Meena Dhuri i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi & Ms. S. V. Tondwalkar for BMC in
WP/2419/2025.
Ms. Meena Dhuri i/b Ms. Komal Punjabi and Ms. Rupali Adhate for BMC in
WPL/19059/2025, WPL/21733/2025 and WPL/19980/2025.
Mr. Sachin Dudhbhate, Sub. Eng. ( SR Cell)
Mr. Prakash Sonawane, Sub Eng. Estate Dept.
Dr. Milind Sathe, Sr. Adv. a/w Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal a/w Mr. Prakhar Tandon,
Ms. Aarushi Yadav, Mr.Somesh Pathak i/b R. S Justicia Law Chamber for R. No.
4 To 6, SRA in WP/2419/2025.
Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal a/w Mr. Prakhar Tandon, Ms. Aarushi Yadav, Mr. Somesh
Pathak i/b R. S Justicia Law Chamber for R. No. 3, SRA in WPL/21733/2025
and WPL/19059/2025 for R. No.4 & 5 inWPL/19980/2025 and for R. No. 7
AGRC in WP/2419/2025.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ.
DATE: 31st JULY 2025. P.C.
1. We have heard the present proceedings for some time. The first petition
(Star Construction Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ) is filed by the developer
who has been appointed by the slum dwellers society to undertake
redevelopment in respect of a slum which is on the public land belonging to the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Municipal Corporation’). The
other writ petitions are filed by the societies of slum dwellers.
2. At the outset, we may observe that the rights of this petitioner
(developer), if any, are contractual rights created under a development agreement
entered between the co-operative society of the slum dwellers and the petitioner
(developer). It is difficult to accept that any substantive legal rights are conferred
on the developer, so as to have a locus in the developer to maintain the prayers as
made in the petition, more particularly when a challenge as raised in this petition
Page 2 of 14
31 July 2025
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on – 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 31/07/2025 22:22:44 :::
908.DOC
is to the Government Resolution dated 28 March 2025 (impugned G.R.) issued
by the Government of Maharashtra in exercise of powers under Section 154(1) of
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short ‘the MRTP
Act’). In exercise of the aforesaid powers, the impugned GR has been issued in
public interest, which is to the effect that, insofar as the lands of the ownership of
the Municipal Corporation inundated with slums are concerned (by virtue of
encroachments if not otherwise), for the purpose of their redevelopment, the
“Municipal Corporation” which is otherwise a planning authority for the Greater
Mumbai Region, has been recognized to be the ‘slum rehabilitation authority’, for
such slum areas, in substitution of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority constituted
under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act,1971 (for short ‘the Slums Act‘).
3. Section 154 of the MRTP Act is the substantive power conferred on the
State Government to be exercised in the larger public interest under which the
impgned GR has been issued. Section 154 of the MRTP Act reads thus:
“Section 154. Control by State Government.
[(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the rules
or regulations made thereunder, the State Government may, for
implementing or bringing into effect the Central or the State
Government programmes, policies or projects or for the efficient
administration of this Act or in the larger public interest, issue,
from time to time, such directions or instructions as may be
necessary, to any Regional Board, Planning Authority or
Development Authority and it shall be the duty of such
authorities to carry out such directions or instructions within the
time-limit, if any, specified in such directions or instructions.
(2) If in, or in connection with, the exercise of its powers and
discharge of its functions by any Regional Board, Planning
Authority or Development Authority under this Act, any dispute
arises between the Regional Board, Planning Authority or
Development Authority, and the State Government, the decisionPage 3 of 14
31 July 2025
P. V. Rane::: Uploaded on – 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 31/07/2025 22:22:44 :::
908.DOC
of the State Government on such dispute shall be final.”
4. To appreciate the nature of the impugned GR, the same is required to be
extracted, which reads thus:
“Official Translation of Government Resolution dated 28 March
2025.
Directions under Section 154 (1) of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966.
———————————————
To confer the powers to the Commissioner,
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,
which are conferred upon the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority in the capacity of
Planning Authority for the areas under the
Slum Rehabilitation Schemes on the lands
of the ownership of the Municipal
Corporation within the limits of the
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation.
GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Number : TPB – 4319/M.No.188 (Part-2)/2019/U.D.-11
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
Date: 28/03/2025
GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION
Read:- Letter bearing No. MCP/6250 dated 04/07/2024 from
the Commissioner, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to the
Urban Development Department of the Government.
PREFACE:-
As per Section 2(19) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has been given
the status as Planning Authority for implementing Slum
Rehabilitation Schemes on the area declared as a Slum under
Section 3(C) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,
Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The Slum
Rehabilitation Authority is not a local Authority and thus, it is
the obligatory duty of the Brihanmumbai Municipal
Corporation, being the Local Authority for the areas within the
limits of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to provide basic
infrastructure for the people in general.
Most of the areas within the limits of Brihanmumbai
Municipal Corporation to be developed, are occupied by slumsPage 4 of 14
31 July 2025
P. V. Rane::: Uploaded on – 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 31/07/2025 22:22:44 :::
908.DOC
and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has been given the powers
under section 2(19) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, as the Planning Authority for implementing Slum
Rehabilitation Schemes on all other declared areas occupied by
slums, including the land of the ownership of the Municipal
Corporation. However, being the Local Authority, it is the
obligatory duty of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to
provide basic infrastructure for all such areas and the main source
of the funds required by the Municipal Corporation for providing
the said infrastructure, is the development fees being charged for
granting permission to carry out development under the
provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
However, there is a scarcity of funds required by the Municipal
Corporation for the said purpose. Such facts have been
mentioned in the letter from the Brihanmumbai Municipal
Corporation referred to hereinabove and under the above
referred letter, the Municipal Corporation has requested the
Urban Development Department of the Government of
Maharashtra to delegate to the Brihanmumbai Municipal
Corporation, the powers of Slum Rehabilitation Authority
conferred upon it for implementing Slum Rehabilitation Schemes
for the areas under 64 Slum Rehabilitation Schemes mentioned
in the Appendix appended to the above referred letter from the
Municipal Corporation, apart from the Slum Rehabilitation
Schemes which are underway by the Slum Rehabilitation
Authority on the lands of the ownership of the Municipal
Corporation situated within the limits of Brihanmumbai
Municipal Corporation. Accordingly, as the aforesaid facts
mentioned by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation in the
above referred letter and the point mentioned by the Municipal
Corporation that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation is
the Local Authority for the areas within the limits of
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and that the burden of
providing basic infrastructure for the people in general falls on
the Municipal Corporation, are in accordance with the facts and
therefore, with a view to see that the Slum Rehabilitation
Schemes on the lands of the ownership of the Municipal
Corporation are implemented systematically and speedily, the
issue to delegate to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,
the powers conferred upon the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for
implementing Slum Rehabilitation Schemes on the lands of the
ownership of the Municipal Corporation, occupied by slums, was
under consideration of the Government.
In view thereof, the Directions under Section 154(1) of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, are given as
under :-
DIRECTIONS
i) As per the provisions of Section 2(19) of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the Slum RehabilitationPage 5 of 14
31 July 2025
P. V. Rane::: Uploaded on – 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 31/07/2025 22:22:44 :::
908.DOC
Authority has been given a status as a Planning Authority to
implement a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the area declared as
a Slum under Section 3(c) of the Maharashtra Slum
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
Although it is so, the Commissioner of the Brihanmumbai
Municipal Corporation is delegated with the powers that are
available to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in the capacity as
Planning Authority, for the areas owned by the Brihanmumbai
Municipal Corporation, covered under approximately 64 Slum
Rehabilitation Schemes mentioned in the Appendix appended to
the Municipal Corporation’s letter under the reference, and
accordingly, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation shall be
the Planning Authority for the said areas.
ii) In order to implement/carry out the Slum Rehabilitation
Schemes on the lands mentioned in the aforesaid Paragraph (i),
the Commissioner, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation shall
have the powers that are available to the Chief Executive Officer,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority under the Development Control
and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034.
NOTE: Except the 64 Slum Rehabilitation Schemes mentioned
hereinabove, the aforesaid Orders shall not be applicable to those
Slum Rehabilitation Schemes on the lands owned by the
Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation to which the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority has granted its permission and those are
underway.
By Order and in the name of the Governor of Maharashtra.
[Nirmalkumar P. Chaudhari]
Deputy Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra.
To,
1. The Commissioner, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation,
Mahapalika Main Building, Fort, Mumbai -1.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Bandra East, Mumbai – 51.
Copy to:-
1. Director, Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune.
2. Deputy Director, Town Planning, Brihanmumbai, Mahapalika
Marg Mumbai -1.
3. Select File (UD-11).”
(emphasis supplied)
Page 6 of 14
31 July 2025
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on – 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 31/07/2025 22:22:44 :::
908.DOC
5. Thus, the consequence which would be brought about by the impugned
G.R. is that insofar as the lands which are of the “ownership” of the Municipal
Corporation having slums, the ‘planning authority’ for redevelopment of the
slums would be the Municipal Corporation. Thus, in no manner whatsoever, the
redevelopment of the slums or entitlement of the slum dwellers to a tenement
under the slum scheme to be implemented by the Municipal Corporation under
the provisions of the Development Control Regulations namely under
Regulation 33(10) of the “Development Control and Promotion Regulations for
Greater Mumbai, 2034” (for short ‘DCPR 2034’) in no manner would stand
diluted. In any event the only right of the slum dwellers would be that they are
entitled to be rehabilitated. Such right would remain undisturbed under the
redevelopment which would now happen at the hands of the Municipal
Corporation.
6. In any event, the Municipal Corporation per se under the provisions of
Section 2(15) read with Section 2(19) of the MRTP Act, is the planning authority
for the Greater Mumbai region, hence, what has been ordered under the
Government Resolution dated 28 March 2025 is to recognize such authority of
the Municipal Corporation as a planning authority in respect of the slum lands
belonging to and/or of the ownership of the Municipal Corporation. In other
words, the ‘Slum Rehabilitation Authority’ as constituted under the Slums Act
would not be the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for these lands of the Municipal
Corporation and the “Competent Authority” to discharge such obligations would
be the Municipal Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. In this context,
Page 7 of 14
31 July 2025
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on – 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 31/07/2025 22:22:44 :::
908.DOC
the definitions of the ‘Local Authority’ and ‘Planning Authority’ as defined under
Section 2(15) and 2(19) of the MRTP Act as referred in the impugned GR also
needs to be noted, which reads thus:
“Section 2 Definitions
… ..
(15) “local authority” means-
(a) the Bombay Municipal Corporation constituted under the
Bombay Municipal Corporation Act or the Nagpur Municipal
Corporation constituted under the City of Nagpur Corporation
Act, 1948, or any Municipal corporation constituted under the
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949.
… … ..
[(19) “Planning Authority” means a local authority; and shall
includes,-
(a) a Special Planning Authority constituted or appointed or
deemed to have been appointed under section 40; and
(b) in respect of the slum rehabilitation area declared under
section 3C of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,
Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority appointed under section 3A of the said
Act;]
7. In such context, we may also refer to the relevant provisions of the Slums
Act which defines ‘Competent Authority’ under Section 2(c) which means a
person or body appointed to be the Competent Authority under Section 3 which
includes ‘local authority’ as Section 3 of the Slums Act would provide. Section
2(c) and Section 3 of the Slum Act read thus:
“Section 2 Definitions
… ..
(c) “Competent Authority” means a person or body appointed to
be the Competent Authority under section 3;
………
Section 3 Appointment of Competent Authorities.
(1) The State Government may, by notification in the
‘Official Gazette, appoint any person, to be the Competent
Authority for the purposes of the Act, for such areas as may be
specified in the notification.
(2) Where any body corporate (including a local
authority) is appointed to be the Competent Authority, then the
Page 8 of 14
31 July 2025
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on – 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 31/07/2025 22:22:44 :::
908.DOC
powers and functions of the Competent Authority under this Act
shall, subject to such restrictions and conditions as the
Competent Authority may impose in this behalf, be exercised and
performed on behalf of such body corporate [by such officer of
the concerned Competent authority, as such Authority, by
general or special order issued in this behalf, appoints.].
(emphasis supplied)
8. It is on such backdrop, the Municipal Corporation has proceeded under
the Government Resolution dated 28 March 2025 issued under Section 154(1)
of the MRTP Act, to exercise powers as the Slum Rehabilitation Authority qua
the municipal lands.
9. It appears that there are about 64 lands belonging to the Municipal
Corporation declared as slums and which would be now subject matter of
redevelopment by the Municipal Corporation being the Planning Authority. It is
only in respect of one slum, the developer and a co-operative society formed by
the slum dwellers both are before the Court in Writ Petition (l) No. 19059 of
2025 (Star Construction Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and in Writ
Petition (l) No.21733 of 2025 (Ashok Nagar Rahivashi & Vyapari Co-op. Hsg.
Society (Prop) vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) respectively. Two other
societies of the slum dwellers in Writ Petition No.2419 of 2025 (Mahavirdham
Co-op. Hsg. Scty (Proposed) & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors) and
Writ Petition (l) No.19980 of 2024 (Ajit Nagar SRA Co-op. Hsg. Scty. Ltd. Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) are before the Court raising a similar challenge.
Thus, only in regard to three slums out of total 64 schemes of the Municipal
Corporation, these three parties are before the Court.
10. As clearly seen, the canvass of the Government Resolution is in respect of
Page 9 of 14
31 July 2025
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on – 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 31/07/2025 22:22:44 :::
908.DOC
large number of municipal lands. It is on such backdrop the Municipal
Corporation has proceeded to invite ‘expression of interest’ in a pattern of public-
private partnership to redevelop these municipal slums. In our opinion, a robust
and transparent approach in regard to slum redevelopment qua the municipal
lands is being adopted, with conditions preserving public interest in the work in
question. It is this action which is being challenged by the developer and the
slum dwellers society.
11. Today on behalf of the petitioners in the writ filed by the developer – Star
Construction, as urged by Mr. Samdhani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner/developer the interim prayer is for a stay on the further steps being
taken by the Municipal Corporation, on the tender process (Expression of
Interest). Such prayer is made when Dr. Saraf, learned Advocate General who
represents the State Government requested for some time to place on record a
reply affidavit, which he stated, can be filed by 12 August 2025 and the
proceedings can be taken up immediately thereafter. We were accordingly
inclined to adjourn the proceedings to be listed on 14 August 2025. However, as
Mr. Samdhani would pray for an ad-interim relief of a stay on the tender process
as noted hereinabove. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the
appropriate orders to be passed at this stage of the proceedings.
12. We are not inclined to accept the request of Mr. Samdhani, to grant any
ad-interim order on his petition and stay the tender process and/or expression of
interest, as invited by the Municipal Corporation considering the facts and
circumstances of the case. The reason being more than one. In our prima facie
Page 10 of 14
31 July 2025
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on – 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 31/07/2025 22:22:44 :::
908.DOC
opinion, on first principles the Municipal Corporation itself being the owner of
the lands in question i.e. the land being a public land, and the Municipal
Corporation now under the impugned GR dated 28 March 2025, having become
the planning authority to redevelop and/or rehabilitate the slum dwellers, would
now develop its own land in a fair, open and transparent manner. Thus, the
developer appointed by the slum dwellers society, in our prima facie opinion, can
have no locus whatsoever, so as to stall the tender process being undertaken by
the respondent-Corporation in respect of its own land. The developer per se
would not have any right except the contractual rights as conferred by the slum
dwellers. Certainly there would not be legal rights so as to assert, as to who
should be the statutory authority /planning authority, qua the redevelopment of a
slum on the municipal land.
13. Prima facie even the slum dwellers who have formed a society and who are
before the Court, can have no locus to stall the process as their entitlement would
be merely to have a rehabilitation in a slum tenement which would be offered to
them under the redevelopment scheme, now being adopted by the Municipal
Corporation.
14. One of the contentions as urged by Mr. Samdhani in support of his prayer
for ad-interim relief is that the State Government cannot exercise power under
Section 154 of the MRTP Act which would have the effect of amending the
D.C. Regulations. In our prima facie opinion, such contention is untenable and
most importantly when being urged by a developer, apart from the fact that in
law it has no legs to stand. Insofar as the slum redevelopment is concerned, now
Page 11 of 14
31 July 2025
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on – 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 31/07/2025 22:22:44 :::
908.DOC
the Municipal Corporation steps into the shoes of the planning authority i.e.
Slum Rehabilitation Authority and the redevelopment would be undertaken as
per the extant Regulations [DCPR 33(10)] on which there cannot be any quarrel.
Whatever the slum dwellers would be entitled under the provisions of Regulation
33(10) would now be provided for by the Municipal Corporation and the
developer appointed by the Municipal Corporation. Thus, there is no
disadvantage whatsoever to the slum dwellers in their entitlement to receive
tenements in rehabilitation. Hence, such contention in any event cannot be
accepted.
15. It clearly appears that the only reason on which the petitioner-developer is
aggrieved is that the Municipal Corporation would now undertake
redevelopment of the slums by appointing a developer in a open bidding process
qua the Municipal Corporation’s land. This is not and cannot be alien to the
existing requirements of law, that the owner of the land would have a first
option / pre-emptory right to undertake redevelopment. Merely for the reason,
some of the owners of the slum land do not come forward or default in claiming
the first right to redevelopment, and in such situation the society of slum dwellers
appointing a slum developer, cannot be a comparable instance, to oust the rights
of the Municipal Corporation to undertake redevelopment of its own land under
Regulations 33(10) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations for
Greater Mumbai, 2034. It was also availabel for any developer to participate in
the tender process as invited by the Municipal Corporation.
16. In fact our experience would show that the slum dwellers would be in a
Page 12 of 14
31 July 2025
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on – 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 31/07/2025 22:22:44 :::
908.DOC
better position in the event the slum redevelopment and rehabilitation is
undertaken in a more transparent and robust manner as being undertaken by the
Municipal Corporation. The slum dwellers would be under the statutory
umbrella of the Municipal Corporation and would be appropriately rehoused as
per law, as a public authority like the Municipal Corporation, would be
undertaking redevelopment, and certainly the slum dwellers would not be at the
mercy of private developers in respect of their permanent alternate
accommodation, or so many other drawbacks faced in such schemes being
undertaken by developers appointed by the slum societies. On the stringent
conditions as set out in the tender document, a developer being apointed in a
transparent manner by the Municipal Corporation, there would be more
accountability/responsibility on the part of the developer as appointed, who
would be required to discharge its obligation under the rules and the statutory
framework under the orders and directives of the Municipal Commissioner in
undertaking the scheme and complete the same effectively. This would also avoid
the slum dwellers being constrained to litigate against the developers.
17. In these circumstances, there is no question of the developer or even the
slum dwellers asserting any rights as to select the planning authority. The law
would not confer any such right on the slum dwellers much less the developers.
18. In the aforesaid circumstances, we reject the prayers of the petitioner for
any ad-interim reliefs.
19. The State Government to file its reply affidavit by 12 August 2025, and a
copy of the same be served on all the parties. The proceedings be kept for further
Page 13 of 14
31 July 2025
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on – 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 31/07/2025 22:22:44 :::
908.DOC
hearing on 14 August 2025. (HOB).
20. At this stage Dr. Sathe, learned Counsel appearing for SRA states that the
proceedings instead of 14 August 2025 be taken on 18 August 2025. None has
objection.
21. Accordingly, we list the proceedings on 18 August 2025.(HOB)
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 14 of 14
31 July 2025
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on – 31/07/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 31/07/2025 22:22:44 :::