Case Note & Summary
The judgment, rendered on 3 June 2019 by Justice G.S. Kulkarni of the Bombay High Court, was a writ petition concerning a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on government land where slum dwellers had awaited rehabilitation since 1997. The court, in its prelude, voiced serious concerns about the systemic hurdles impeding slum redevelopment projects. It noted that despite the beneficial object of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971, the process of allowing slum dwellers to select developers often led to exploitation, disputes, and protracted litigation, thereby defeating the purpose of expeditious rehabilitation. The court proposed that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority consider creating a panel of credible developers to ensure accountability and timely project completion. The case involved M/s. Galaxy Enterprises, the petitioner, who had been appointed as developer by the slum dwellers' society, Shree Ashtavinayak Cooperative Housing Society (Proposed), for redeveloping a plot owned by MHADA. The land bore CTS No.539C/1/A/4 (Pt) in Village Chakala, Andheri, Mumbai, and had 87 structures, with 73 eligible slum dwellers. In 1997, M/s. Saral Enterprises had earlier been appointed but failed to obtain permissions, leading MHADA to annul the Annexure-II and NOC in 2005. In 2006, the society appointed the petitioner as developer after obtaining over 70% consent. Development agreement and power of attorney were executed on 8 November 2006. The petitioner then sought revalidation of Annexure-II. The society later filed an application for change of developer, which was allowed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 24 April 2017. The termination order declared the petitioner's appointment terminated and allowed the society to appoint a new developer, while directing valuation of expenses for reimbursement. The petitioner appealed to the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, which dismissed the appeal on 30 October 2017. Hence, the writ petition. The text of the judgment provided was incomplete, cutting off at paragraph 11, thereby preventing extraction of the final decision, legal reasoning, or complete reliefs.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee correctly dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the order of the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority terminating the petitioner as developer of the slum rehabilitation scheme.
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (06) 50
WRIT PETITION NO. 2987 OF 2018
P.K. Dhakephalkar, Karan Bhosale, Vipul Singh, Samdhani, Shrihari Aney, Yogesh Sankpal, Makrand Kale, Vijay Patil, Mukesh Vashi, Girish Godbole, Mark D'Mello, Shaun Pinto, Girish Utangale, Chetan Mhatre, Sujay Prabhu
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee which upheld the termination of the petitioner as developer of a slum rehabilitation scheme.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 30 October 2017 and restoration of the petitioner as developer.
Filing Reason
The Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority terminated the petitioner's appointment as developer, and the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee dismissed the appeal.
Previous Decisions
Order of the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority dated 24 April 2017 terminating the petitioner's appointment; Order of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee dated 30 October 2017 dismissing the petitioner's appeal.
Issues
Whether the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee was justified in upholding the termination of the petitioner as developer of the slum rehabilitation project.
Judgment Excerpts
This is yet another proceeding concerning a ‘Slum Rehabilitation Scheme’ on Government land, wherein the slum dwellers since the year 1997 have nurtured an unfulfilled dream to be rehabilitated in a permanent roof over their head and live in human conditions.
There is a wealth of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court emphasizing on the expeditious and effective rehabilitation of slum dwellers...
The vital issue which has often led to controversy and disputes, is on the rules permitting, the selection and appointment of developers to undertake a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, being conferred on the slum dwellers...
Procedural History
The Society initially appointed M/s. Saral Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. as developer in 1997. MHADA issued Annexure-II in 1998 but later annulled it in 2005 due to inaction. In 2006, the Society appointed the petitioner as developer. The Society later sought termination of the petitioner, which was granted by the CEO, SRA on 24 April 2017. The petitioner's appeal to the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee was dismissed on 30 October 2017. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971:
- Development Control Regulations of Greater Bombay: Regulation 33(10)
- Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966:
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Partnership Act, 1932:
