Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Gopal Dinkar Vanave and Shekhar Gopal Vanave, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, challenging an order dated 19 December 2022 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC). The AGRC had upheld an earlier order dated 13 October 2022 passed by the Tahsildar-2 (Special Cell) of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), which cancelled the petitioners' membership in the Jankalyan SRA Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Respondent No. 5) for non-payment of the premium amount. The petitioners were original slum dwellers who had been allotted a rehabilitation building. They claimed that they had paid the premium amount to the developer, Accord Builders (Respondent No. 6), but could not produce any receipt or documentary evidence. The Tehsildar, after conducting an inquiry, found that the petitioners had failed to prove payment and cancelled their membership. The AGRC, on appeal, affirmed this finding. The petitioners then approached the High Court, arguing that the orders were arbitrary and that they had paid the premium. The court examined the concurrent findings of fact by the Tehsildar and the AGRC, noting that the petitioners had not produced any receipt or contemporaneous document to support their claim. The court observed that the AGRC had considered the evidence and found no perversity. The court held that in writ jurisdiction, it cannot re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. Since the petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proof, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the cancellation of membership. The court also noted that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of approaching the civil court if they wished to establish their claim.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Interference - The High Court in writ jurisdiction does not sit as an appellate authority over concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The court declined to re-appreciate evidence where the AGRC and Tehsildar had concurrently found that the petitioners failed to prove payment of premium. (Paras 1-20) B) Slum Rehabilitation - Membership Cancellation - Non-Payment of Premium - Slum Rehabilitation Authority Guidelines - The petitioners' membership in the society was cancelled for non-payment of premium. The AGRC upheld the cancellation after considering the evidence, including the absence of any receipt or documentary proof of payment. The court found no perversity in the findings. (Paras 2-18) C) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Documentary Evidence - The petitioners claimed payment of premium but failed to produce any receipt or contemporaneous document. The court held that the burden to prove payment lay on the petitioners, and their failure to discharge it justified the cancellation. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) erred in upholding the cancellation of the petitioners' membership in the society for non-payment of premium, and whether the impugned orders suffer from perversity or arbitrariness warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee and the Tahsildar-2 (Special Cell) Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding non-payment of premium were not perverse or arbitrary, and no interference was warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Slum Rehabilitation Authority guidelines
- concurrent findings of fact
- perversity
- documentary evidence
- burden of proof
