Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the order of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) which had set aside the termination of Respondent No.7 as Developer and cancelled permissions granted to the Petitioner. The dispute pertained to a municipal land parcel in Byculla, Mumbai, occupied by municipal tenants and slum dwellers, requiring combined redevelopment under DCR 33(7) and 33(10) of DCPR-2034. Respondent No.7 was initially appointed as Developer by Respondent No.4 Society in 2006. However, Respondent No.7 failed to obtain mandatory consents of 70% municipal tenants and No-Objection Certificate from MCGM, leading to termination by SRA under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slums Areas Act, 1971 on 19.04.2018. The SRA directed the Societies to appoint a new Developer, and the Petitioner was subsequently appointed. Respondent No.7 challenged the termination before AGRC, which allowed the application and cancelled the Petitioner's permissions. The High Court found that the AGRC ignored the fact that Respondent No.7 had not complied with mandatory requirements for over a decade, including obtaining consent of tenants and Annexure-II from MCGM. The Court held that the termination was justified and that the Petitioner's appointment was valid. The impugned order of AGRC was quashed, and the SRA's termination order was restored.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Termination of Developer - Section 13(2) Maharashtra Slums Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - The SRA terminated the appointment of Respondent No.7 as Developer for failure to comply with mandatory requirements including obtaining consent of 70% municipal tenants and No-Objection Certificate from MCGM. The AGRC set aside the termination and cancelled permissions granted to the Petitioner. The High Court held that the AGRC failed to appreciate that the termination was justified due to non-compliance with statutory requirements and that the Petitioner had been validly appointed by the Societies. (Paras 1-10) B) Slum Rehabilitation - Combined Redevelopment - DCR 33(7) and 33(10) - The redevelopment of the property required combined redevelopment under both regulations as per clause 7.1 of DCR 33(10) of DCPR-2034. The Developer was required to obtain consent of municipal tenants and Annexure-II from MCGM. The Court held that failure to obtain these mandatory approvals justified termination. (Paras 2.2-2.5) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with AGRC Order - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the AGRC order as it was passed without considering material facts and in violation of principles of natural justice. The Court restored the SRA's termination order and upheld the appointment of the Petitioner as new Developer. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) erred in setting aside the termination of Respondent No.7 as Developer and in cancelling permissions granted to the Petitioner, without considering the mandatory requirements of obtaining consents of municipal tenants and No-Objection Certificate from MCGM.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order of AGRC dated 23.03.2020, and restored the termination order of SRA dated 19.04.2018. The Court upheld the appointment of Petitioner as new Developer.
Law Points
- Slum Rehabilitation Authority
- Termination of Developer
- Section 13(2) Maharashtra Slums Areas Act
- 1971
- Apex Grievance Redressal Committee
- Combined Redevelopment under DCR 33(7) and 33(10)
- Consent of Tenants
- Annexure-II
- No-Objection Certificate
- Writ Jurisdiction
