Case Note & Summary
The case involves a slum rehabilitation scheme under DCR 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai. The petitioners, Lokhandwala Infrastructure Pvt Ltd and its director, challenged an order dated 6 December 2010 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). The CEO directed the processing of a Letter of Intent (LOI) in favour of the Sixth Respondent, Om Omega Shelters, on the ground that 70% of the members of the cooperative society eligible under the scheme had given their consent. The petitioners, who were also developers, sought to impugn this order. The court considered the submissions of the parties, including the senior advocates for the petitioners and respondents. The court noted that the SRA had verified the consent and found it to be in compliance with the requirement of 70% consent of eligible members. The court held that the CEO's decision was based on a proper assessment of the facts and that the petitioners had not demonstrated any illegality or procedural irregularity. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the SRA's order. The judgment was delivered by a division bench of Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Anoop V. Mohta on 28 January 2011.
Headnote
A) Slum Rehabilitation - Consent Requirement - DCR 33(10) - 70% Consent - The issue was whether the consent of 70% of eligible members of a cooperative society was validly obtained for a slum rehabilitation scheme. The court held that the CEO of SRA was justified in directing processing of Letter of Intent based on the consent, as the petitioners failed to demonstrate any illegality or procedural irregularity. (Paras 1-10)
B) Cooperative Society - Eligibility of Members - Slum Rehabilitation - The court examined the eligibility of members of the proposed cooperative societies and found that the consent of 70% of eligible members was satisfied. The court declined to interfere with the SRA's decision. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority was justified in directing the processing of a Letter of Intent in favour of the Sixth Respondent on the ground that 70% of the members of the cooperative society eligible under the slum rehabilitation scheme had given their consent.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The court upheld the order of the CEO of SRA dated 6 December 2010 directing the processing of the Letter of Intent in favour of the Sixth Respondent.
Law Points
- Slum Rehabilitation Scheme
- DCR 33(10)
- 70% consent requirement
- Letter of Intent
- Cooperative Society
- Eligible Members
- Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO.95 OF 2011
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Anoop V. Mohta
Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pravin Samdhani, Senior Advocate, Mr. Farid Karachiwala, Mr. Bhavik Manek and Mr. Arnav Shah i/b M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Petitioners; Mr. D.A. Nalavade, Government Pleader with Mr. Milind More, AGP for Respondent No.1; Mr. J.G. Aradwad for Respondents 2 and 3; Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pooja Patil i/b Mr. C.N. Gole for Respondent No.4; Mr. S.G. Surana for Respondent No.5; Mr. J.J. Bhatt, Senior Advocate with Mr. Zubin Behramkamdin and Mr. Vivek Vashi i/b Bharucha & Partners for Respondent No.6
Lokhandwala Infrastructure Pvt Ltd & Anr.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging an order of the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority directing processing of a Letter of Intent in a slum rehabilitation scheme.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to impugn the order dated 6 December 2010 passed by the CEO of SRA.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, who were developers, challenged the SRA's decision to process a Letter of Intent in favour of the Sixth Respondent on the ground that 70% of the members of the cooperative society eligible under the scheme had given their consent.
Previous Decisions
The CEO of SRA passed an order on 6 December 2010 directing processing of the Letter of Intent.
Issues
Whether the CEO of SRA was justified in directing processing of Letter of Intent based on 70% consent of eligible members of the cooperative society.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the consent of 70% of eligible members was not validly obtained.
The respondents contended that the SRA had properly verified the consent and it was in compliance with DCR 33(10).
Ratio Decidendi
The CEO of SRA was justified in directing processing of the Letter of Intent as the requirement of 70% consent of eligible members under DCR 33(10) was satisfied. The court declined to interfere with the SRA's decision as no illegality or procedural irregularity was demonstrated.
Judgment Excerpts
The subject matter of these proceedings is a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under DCR 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai.
The Petitioners who are developers seek to impugn an order dated 6 December 2010 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority by which he has issued directions to process a letter of intent in favour of the Sixth Respondent on the ground that 70% of the members of the co operative society eligible and
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging an order dated 6 December 2010 passed by the CEO of SRA. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 28 January 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai: 33(10)
