Bombay HC issues contempt notice to SRA CEO over false assurances to residents

During the proceedings, the court directed that the petitioners’ grievances be considered by a Special Cell or Committee constituted by the SRA.

The Bombay High Court has issued contempt notices to the chief executive officer (CEO) of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and two officials of its Grievance Cell for allegedly breaching court orders and repeatedly assuring the court that the grievances of slum dwellers would be heard and decided, when no such action had been taken.

More land is currently under redevelopment than has been successfully redeveloped over the past three decades, since the inception of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in Maharashtra since 1995 (Picture for representational purposes only/Gemini Generated Photo)

Holding that the conduct amounted to “intentional or wilful disobedience” of its orders, a division bench of justices G S Kulkarni and Neela Gokhale on Tuesday imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the SRA and directed that the amount be paid as compensation to the petitioners.

The bench expressed strong displeasure at the SRA’s conduct, observing that the assurances given to the court were “patently false” and had resulted in the court being “completely deceived”.

Gupta had vacated her tenement in Indira Nagar, Sion Koliwada, in March 2011 for a slum rehabilitation scheme. She was subsequently shifted to a 125 sq ft room in a temporary transit accommodation. According to the petition, the transit camp has since deteriorated considerably and is now in a dilapidated condition, raising concerns about the safety of its occupants.

Despite the passage of years, Gupta said she had not been provided permanent alternate accommodation. Her ordeal continued as she was forced to live on the fourth floor of a transit camp whose term had already expired.

Between 2014 and 2025, several slum dwellers, including Gupta, repeatedly approached the authorities seeking that the allotment process be conducted under the direct supervision of SRA officials to ensure fairness and compliance with the rules. In response, the SRA issued notices to the developer on several occasions between 2014 and 2025, seeking point-wise clarifications within seven to eight days. However, the developer failed to take corrective measures, the petition said.

After exhausting administrative remedies for more than a decade, Gupta approached the high court in October last year, alleging that her grievances had remained unresolved amid bureaucratic inertia and regulatory apathy.

During the proceedings, the court directed that the petitioners’ grievances be considered by a Special Cell or Committee constituted by the SRA. The bench noted that on several occasions between July and August 2026, the SRA assured the court that the complaints would be heard by the Special Cell and appropriate orders passed.

When the matter came up on Tuesday, however, advocate Shakil Ahmed, appearing for Gupta, told the court that the senior citizens had been “languishing in a transit camp” for the last 25 years and that their complaint applications had still not been redressed by the Special Cell. “We are aghast at such an approach on the part of the SRA,” the bench said, pointing out that the “senior citizens are running from pillar to post to secure a roof over their heads”.

The court said the assurances given by the SRA were “clearly an eyewash” and had certainly “affected the administration of justice”. “What has really shocked the conscience of the court is that we were persistently misled to believe that the grievance of the applicants would be redressed, with full knowledge that such assurances were false, amounting to a brazen disobedience of the orders passed by this court which appears to be quite intentional,” the bench observed.

Taking a serious view of the matter, the bench issued contempt notices to the SRA CEO, assistant registrar Sandhya Bawankule and deputy collector Vandana Georaikar, who were the officials appointed to the Grievance Cell. The court also directed the SRA to pay ₹50,000 to Gupta and the other petitioners as compensation, citing a “complete derailment of justice”.

The court’s order comes against the backdrop of a prolonged wait by slum dwellers who surrendered their homes for rehabilitation but continue to remain in temporary accommodation years later. In Gupta’s case, the court took particular exception to the fact that despite repeated assurances made before it, the grievance mechanism set up by the SRA had failed to provide the relief promised.