Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, New Jagruti Co-operative Housing Society Limited (Proposed) and another, filed a writ petition challenging an order of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) which confirmed the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as developer for a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS). The dispute arose between two groups of slum dwellers over the choice of developer. Initially, the society had chosen Respondent No. 3 as developer. However, following a complaint filed by the society through Respondent No. 5 (Harshad Tarde), the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) passed an order on 2 June 2022 terminating Respondent No. 3 as developer and granting liberty to the society to appoint a developer of its choice. Respondent No. 3 challenged this order before the AGRC. Before the AGRC, Respondent No. 5 represented the society and apparently consented to the continuation of Respondent No. 3 as developer. The AGRC went into the merits of the proceedings and set aside the CEO's order, upholding the appointment of Respondent No. 3 and directing it to take necessary steps for completion of the SRS. The petitioners sought to challenge this AGRC order and sought a restraint against the SRA from implementing the SRS through Respondent No. 3. The court, after considering the submissions, found no error in the AGRC's decision and dismissed the petition.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Developer Appointment - Apex Grievance Redressal Committee - The AGRC set aside the CEO's termination order and upheld the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as developer, based on consent of the society's representative and on merits. The court found no error in the AGRC's decision. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) was justified in setting aside the CEO's order terminating the developer and upholding the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as developer for the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
Final Decision
Petition dismissed. The court found no error in the AGRC's decision.
Law Points
- Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
- Developer Appointment
- Apex Grievance Redressal Committee
- Consent
- Termination of Developer
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (03) 87
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 10895 OF 2023
Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Santosh Pathak & Mr. Chirag Thakkar i/b Law Origin, for the Petitioners. Mr. Vijay D. Patil a/w Mr. Yogesh Patil, for SRA, Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Mr. G. S. Godbole, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Arun Panicker, for Respondent No.3. Mr. Anoop Patil a/w Ms. Bhavna Nirban & Mr. Puneet Fonia, for AGRC, Respondent No.4. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mrs. Leena Shah i/b Shah & Furia Associates, for Respondent No. 5 & Applicant in IAL/35010/2023. Mr. Chirag Balsara a/w Mr. Harsh Kesharia, for Applicant in IAL/31548/2023.
New Jagruti Co-operative Housing Society Limited (Prop.) & Anr.
Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) confirming appointment of developer for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought restraint order against Slum Redevelopment Authority from implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme through Respondent No. 3 developer.
Filing Reason
Petitioners challenged the AGRC order that set aside the CEO's termination of Respondent No. 3 as developer and upheld its appointment.
Previous Decisions
CEO, SRA passed order dated 2 June 2022 terminating Respondent No. 3 as developer. AGRC set aside that order and upheld appointment of Respondent No. 3.
Issues
Whether the AGRC was justified in setting aside the CEO's termination order and upholding the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as developer.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued against the AGRC order. Respondents supported the AGRC decision.
Ratio Decidendi
The AGRC's decision to set aside the CEO's termination order and uphold the developer's appointment was based on consent of the society's representative and on merits, and no interference was warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioners have filed this Petition challenging the Order passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) confirming the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as a developer for implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS).
In short this is battle between two groups of Slum Dwellers, who want the SRS to be implemented through the developer of their choice.
Procedural History
CEO, SRA passed order on 2 June 2022 terminating Respondent No. 3 as developer. Respondent No. 3 challenged before AGRC. AGRC set aside CEO's order and upheld appointment of Respondent No. 3. Petitioners filed writ petition challenging AGRC order.
