Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Hanuman Nagar (Jogeshwari) SRA CHS (Proposed), is a society of slum dwellers residing on a plot in Jogeshwari, Mumbai. In 2006, the majority of members appointed M/s Kanchi Builders & Developers as the developer for a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under DCR 33(10). The developer submitted a proposal in 2006, and in 2006, 124 slum dwellers were declared eligible. By 2010, 80 slum dwellers handed over their huts, but the developer failed to complete the project, leading to delays and non-compliance with the Letter of Intent. The CEO of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority terminated the developer's appointment on 23 November 2017, citing failure to comply with the LOI and delays. The developer appealed to the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, which set aside the termination order on 27 September 2018, without hearing the petitioner society. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court. The court found that the AGRC's order was passed without application of mind, ignoring the developer's non-compliance and the welfare of the slum dwellers, and in violation of natural justice as the petitioner was not heard. The High Court set aside the AGRC's order and restored the CEO's termination order, allowing the society to appoint a new developer in accordance with SRA rules.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Termination of Developer - Apex Grievance Redressal Committee - The AGRC set aside the CEO-SRA's termination order without considering the developer's non-compliance with the LOI and the welfare of slum dwellers, and without hearing the petitioner society - Held that the AGRC's order was perverse and liable to be set aside (Paras 1-36).
B) Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - The AGRC passed its order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner society, which was directly affected - Held that the order violated principles of natural justice (Paras 30-36).
C) Judicial Review - Administrative Orders - The High Court can interfere with an order of the AGRC if it is arbitrary, perverse, or based on non-application of mind - Held that the AGRC's order failed to consider relevant material and was thus unsustainable (Paras 30-36).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) was justified in setting aside the order of the CEO-SRA terminating the appointment of the developer, and whether the AGRC's order suffers from non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the AGRC order dated 27 September 2018, and restored the CEO-SRA order dated 23 November 2017 terminating the developer. The petitioner society was permitted to appoint a new developer in accordance with SRA rules.
Law Points
- Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
- Termination of Developer
- Apex Grievance Redressal Committee
- Natural Justice
- Judicial Review
- Development Control Regulations
- 1991
Case Details
2021 LawText (BOM) (04) 28
WRIT PETITION NO. 12156 OF 2019
S.J. Kathawalla, R.I. Chagla
Mr. D. Nalawade i/b. Mr. Anil Mishra for the Petitioner, Mr. Jayesh Bhatt for Respondent No. 1, Mr. Anoop Patil for Respondent No. 2, Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Adv. a/w. Mr. J.G. Aradwad (Reddy) for Respondent No. 3
Hanuman Nagar (Jogeshwari) SRA CHS (Prop.) Through its Chairman – Anant Madhukar Naik
M/s. Kanchi Builders & Developers, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging the order of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee setting aside the termination of the developer by the CEO-SRA.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner society sought to quash the AGRC order dated 27 September 2018 and restore the CEO-SRA order dated 23 November 2017 terminating the developer.
Filing Reason
The AGRC set aside the termination order without hearing the petitioner society and without considering the developer's non-compliance.
Previous Decisions
CEO-SRA terminated the developer on 23 November 2017; AGRC set aside that order on 27 September 2018.
Issues
Whether the AGRC's order setting aside the termination of the developer was valid.
Whether the AGRC violated principles of natural justice by not hearing the petitioner society.
Whether the AGRC's order suffered from non-application of mind.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the developer failed to comply with the LOI and caused delays, and the AGRC passed the order without hearing the society.
Respondent No. 1 (developer) argued that the termination was unjustified and the AGRC correctly restored their appointment.
Respondent No. 2 (SRA) supported the CEO's termination order.
Respondent No. 3 (AGRC) defended its order.
Ratio Decidendi
The AGRC's order was set aside because it was passed without application of mind, ignored the developer's non-compliance with the LOI, and violated principles of natural justice by not hearing the petitioner society, which was directly affected.
Judgment Excerpts
The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee has set aside the Order passed by the CEO – SRA dated 23rd November, 2017, terminating the appointment of the Respondent No. 1 – M/s Kanchi Builders and Developers as Developers of the subject Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
The AGRC passed its order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner society, which was directly affected.
The AGRC's order is perverse and liable to be set aside.
Procedural History
The CEO-SRA terminated the developer on 23 November 2017. The developer appealed to the AGRC, which set aside the termination on 27 September 2018. The petitioner society filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the AGRC order. The High Court reserved judgment on 15 December 2020 and pronounced on 29 April 2021.
Acts & Sections
- Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991: Regulation 33 (10)
