High Court of Judicature at Bombay Hears Petitions in Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Dispute — Petitioners Seek Commencement Certificate and Challenge Stop Work Notice. Petitioners Invoke Regulation 2.8 of DCPR 2034 Deemed NOC Against Non-Issuance of CC and Dispute Inclusion of 66 PAPs in Supplementary Annexure-II Contrary to Supreme Court Order Recording 47 PAPs.

Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the withholding of a Commencement Certificate and related actions in a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, invoking deemed NOC under DCPR 2034 Regulation 2.8.

Petitioners sought issuance of a Commencement Certificate, implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, and enforcement of deemed NOC under Regulation 2.8 of DCPR 2034; they also challenged the Stop Work Notice and the inclusion of 66 PAPs in supplementary Annexure-II.

The respondent authorities failed to issue a Commencement Certificate despite the petitioner's alleged compliance with all conditions, and issued a Stop Work Notice; the supplementary Annexure-II included more PAPs than recorded by the Supreme Court, causing delay in project implementation.

The AGRC quashed the LOI on 28 July 2022; the High Court set aside the AGRC order and reinstated LOI and IOA on 2 April 2024; the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition on 13 May 2024, recording the developer's assurance to rehabilitate 47 DP Road occupants.

Whether the respondent authorities were justified in withholding the Commencement Certificate despite the petitioner's compliance with conditions and invocation of Regulation 2.8 of DCPR 2034. Whether the Stop Work Notice dated 21 June 2024 was arbitrary and contrary to the Supreme Court order. Whether the inclusion of 66 PAPs in supplementary Annexure-II instead of 47 was lawful. Whether the petitioner was entitled to deemed NOC under Regulation 2.8 of DCPR 2034 after expiry of 60 days from application.

Petitioner contended that it complied with all conditions for issuance of CC, including submission of NOCs and deposits, and that non-issuance of CC within 60 days triggered deemed NOC under Regulation 2.8 of DCPR 2034. Petitioner argued that the Stop Work Notice was unjustified and that the inclusion of 66 PAPs in supplementary Annexure-II contradicted the Supreme Court order recording 47 PAPs. Non-cooperating slum dwellers argued before AGRC that the LOI and IOA were invalid because the proposal varied from the sanctioned scheme, excluded the DP Road Plot to circumvent Circular No.144's 51% consent requirement, and amounted to impermissible review of an earlier decision. Respondent authorities cited non-compliance with requirements such as missing NOCs, CRZ clearance, civil aviation authority approval, and lack of joint inspection, leading to withholding of CC.

This Court, vide a common order dated 2nd April 2024, was pleased to allow both the Writ Petitions, setting aside the order dated 28th July 2022 passed by the AGRC and reinstating the Petitioner’s proposal for redevelopment, i.e., the LOI dated 4th May 2022 and the IOA dated 10th May 2022. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by its Order dated 13th May 2024, dismissed the SLP in the following terms: “The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent has invited our attention to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit dated 9th May, 2024. He states that in addition to 164 slum dwellers mentioned in paragraph 4 of the affidavit, the first respondent will provide the similar benefit of accommodation/rehabilitation to 47 occupants of D.P. Road (Dayaldas Road) abutting Final Plot No. 187 in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Eventually, on 19th September 2024, Respondent No. 2 conducted a survey of the DP Road Plot and, three months thereafter, on 7th January 2025, published the supplementary Annexure – II in respect of the PAP’s, which included the names of 66 PAPs and not 47 PAP’s as recorded in the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In November 2020, the petitioner was appointed as developer by Respondent No.4 for redevelopment of F.P. No. 187 (pt.) under a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. On 2 December 2020, a proposal was submitted under Circular No.144 and DCPR 2034; on 29 December 2020, draft Annexure-II was submitted; on 19 January 2021, verification was done by AMC & CA. On 25 February 2021, Respondent No.2 accepted the proposal with condition to accommodate DP Road occupants as PAPs. On 11 April 2022, Respondent No.6 issued NOC with same condition. LOI dated 4 May 2022 and IOA dated 10 May 2022 were issued. Non-cooperating slum dwellers challenged the LOI and IOA before AGRC, which quashed the LOI on 28 July 2022. The High Court set aside the AGRC order on 2 April 2024 and reinstated the LOI and IOA. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition on 13 May 2024. Respondent No.2 issued a Stop Work Notice on 21 June 2024 requiring certified Annexure-II and compliance with Circular No.210. The petitioner deposited rent for 14 structures and later for 70 structures; the Stop Work Notice was withdrawn with conditions. A revised IOA was issued on 21 November 2024, and the petitioner applied for a commencement certificate the same day. Respondent No.2 sought NOCs; on 9 December 2024, a letter was sent for NOC under Regulation 2.8 of DCPR 2034. On 19 September 2024, a survey of DP Road Plot was conducted; on 7 January 2025, supplementary Annexure-II was published with 66 PAPs instead of 47. On 26 December 2024, Respondent No.2 cited non-compliance for CC; the petitioner's architect confirmed compliance on 11 February 2025. The writ petitions were filed thereafter.

• Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR 2034): Regulation 2.8, Regulation 33(10)