Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jangid Home Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 16th May 2023 passed by the Joint Registrar (SRA). The order pertained to the appointment of Respondent No.5, Mahesh Goikar, as the developer for a slum rehabilitation project in Bandrekarwadi, Jogeshwari East, and the cancellation of the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the Joint Registrar had acted without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents, including the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and the proposed society, argued that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act) before the Apex Grievance Redressal Commission (AGRC), which had not been exhausted. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy barred the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The court dismissed the petition on the ground of maintainability, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The court clarified that the petitioner was at liberty to approach the AGRC under Section 35 of the Slum Act, and if such an application was filed within a specified period, the AGRC would consider it without being influenced by the dismissal of the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court held that the writ petition challenging an order of the Joint Registrar (SRA) was not maintainable as the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 35 of the Slum Act before the Apex Grievance Redressal Commission, which had not been exhausted. The court dismissed the petition on this ground without entering into the merits. (Paras 1-30)
B) Slum Rehabilitation - Appointment of Developer - Cancellation of LOI - Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - The dispute pertained to the appointment of Respondent No.5 as developer and cancellation of the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued to the petitioner. The court declined to adjudicate the merits as the petitioner had not availed the statutory remedy of appeal/revision before the Apex Grievance Redressal Commission. (Paras 1-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the order of the Joint Registrar (SRA) is maintainable when an alternative remedy under Section 35 of the Slum Act before the Apex Grievance Redressal Commission is available and has not been exhausted.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of maintainability. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Apex Grievance Redressal Commission under Section 35 of the Slum Act within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. If such an application is filed, the AGRC shall consider it without being influenced by the dismissal of the writ petition. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Exhaustion of alternative remedy
- Jurisdiction of Apex Grievance Redressal Commission under Section 35 of Slum Act
- Scope of judicial review under Article 226
- Maintainability of writ petition when statutory remedy available
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (07) 100
Writ Petition No. 1552 of 2021
Mr. J. P. Sen, Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Sonappa Nandrankar, Mr. Kunal Vaishnav and Mr. Behazad Irani, for Petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Patil i/by. Mr. Vijay Patil for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 (SRA). Mr. Simil Purohit, Mr. Manish G. Varma, Ms. Surbhi Soni i/by. MGV Associates for Respondent No.4. Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Kevic Setalvad, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Cherag Balsara a/w. Mr. Jehan Lalkaka and Adv. Srividya Venkat i/by. VR Juris for Respondent No.5. Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for Respondent No.6 (AGRC).
Jangid Home Private Limited
Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Joint Registrar (SRA), DSLR (SRA), Bandrekarwadi Akshay Yog CHS, Mahesh Goikar, Apex Greivance Redressal Commission
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Joint Registrar (SRA) regarding appointment of developer and cancellation of Letter of Intent in a slum rehabilitation project.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 16th May 2023 passed by the Joint Registrar (SRA) and restoration of the Letter of Intent issued in its favor.
Filing Reason
The petitioner challenged the order of the Joint Registrar (SRA) which appointed Respondent No.5 as developer and cancelled the LOI issued to the petitioner, alleging lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice.
Previous Decisions
The Joint Registrar (SRA) passed an order on 16th May 2023 appointing Respondent No.5 as developer and cancelling the LOI of the petitioner. The petitioner did not challenge this order before the Apex Grievance Redressal Commission under Section 35 of the Slum Act.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy under Section 35 of the Slum Act is available and has not been exhausted.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Joint Registrar acted without jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice, and that the alternative remedy was not efficacious.
Respondents argued that the petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 35 of the Slum Act before the Apex Grievance Redressal Commission, which has not been exhausted.
Ratio Decidendi
The existence of an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 35 of the Slum Act before the Apex Grievance Redressal Commission bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court declined to entertain the petition on merits as the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Writ Petition impugns an order dated 16th May 2023 passed by the Joint Registrar (SRA).
The court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 35 of the Slum Act.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1552 of 2021 before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 16th May 2023 of the Joint Registrar (SRA). The respondents raised the preliminary objection of maintainability due to availability of alternative remedy. The court heard the parties and dismissed the petition on 10th July 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971: Section 35
- Constitution of India: Article 226
