1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1036 OF 2007
M/s.Sigtia Constructions Pvt.Ltd. .. Petitioner
V/s
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
ALONGWITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1075 OF 2007
Ramchandra Mahadev Jagtap & Ors.
ig .. Petitioners
V/s
The Cheif Executive Officer,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. .. Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.1589 OF 2007
Keya Developers and Construction Private Ltd. .. Petitioners
V/s
The Chief Executive Officer,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. .. Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.2720 OF 2008
Chandrakant Sitaram Mane .. Petitioners
V/s
Slum Rehabilitation Authority .. Respondent
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
2
Appearances:
In Writ Petition No.1036 of 2007:
Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr.Himanshu Kode i/by M/s.Shaunak
Satpute & Co.for the Petitioner.
Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.G.D.Utangale i/by M/s.Utangale
& Co.for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Mr.Rajeev Narulla, Advocate i/by M/s.Jhangiani Narulla & Associates for
Respondent No.7.
Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.P.Sen i/by M/s.Kanga &
Co.for Respondent No.8.
In Writ Petition No.1075 of 2007:
Mr.F.Devitre, Senior Advocate with Mr.H.N.Thakore i/by M/s.Thakore
Jariwala and Associates for the Petitioners.
Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.G.D.Utangale i/by M/s.Utangale
& Co.for Respondent No.1.
Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.P.Sen i/by M/s.Kanga &
Co. for Respondent No.3.
Mr.C.U.Singh, Senior Advocate with Ms.Gunjan Shah i/by M/s.Shaunak
Satpute & Co.for Respondent No.4.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
3
In Writ Petition No.1589 of 2007:
Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.P.Sen i/by M/s.Kanga &
Co. for the Petitioners.
Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.G.D.Utangale i/by M/s.Utangale
& Co.for Respondent No.1.
Mr.Vinod Bobde, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sunil Goel, Mr.Sachin Kadam
i/by M/s.Shaunak Satpute & Co. for Respondent No.3.
Mr.K.K.Singhvi, Senior Advocate for Respondent No.4.
In Writ Petition No.2720 of 2008:
Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Ms.Alpana Ghone and Mr.Khaitan
i/by M/s.Anoop Khaitan & Co.for the Petitioners.
Mr.J.G.Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr.Himanshu Kode, Advocate with Mr.Anant Upadhyay i/by M/s.Shaunak
Satpute & Co.for the Applicants in Chamber Summons No.3 of 2008.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
4
CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH &
R.G.KETKAR, JJ.
DATE : 17th September, 2009.
JUDGMENT: (Per R.G.Ketkar, J.)
1. All these petitions challenge the order dated February 6, 2007 passed
by the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for
short “SRA”). The controversy in all these petitions relates to the grant
of Letter of Intent (for short “LOI”) for implementation of Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme (for short “Scheme”) on a plot bearing CTS
Nos.439 to 442, 443, 444 (part), 447, 451, 452, 453A and 454A
situate at village Vile-parle, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai Suburban
District (for short the “said plot”) of the proposed Premnagar Co-
operative Housing Society (for short “Society), therefore all these
petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. Writ
petition No.1036 of 2007 is instituted by M/s.Sigtia Constructions
Private Limited (for short “M/s.Sigtia”). Writ petition No.1075 of
2007 is instituted by Mr.Ramchandra Mahadev Jagtap and nine
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
5
Others (for short hereinafter referred to as”Jagtap & Ors.”) who are
eligible slum dwellers and are residents of the said plot. Writ
Petition No.1589 of 2007 is instituted by M/s.Keya Developers and
Construction Private Limited (for short hereinafter referred as
“M/s.Keya Developers”). Writ Petition No.2720 of 2008 is instituted
by Mr.Chandrakant Sitaram Mane (hereinafter referred to as “Mane”),
challenging the order dated February 6, 2007 passed by the SRA, as
also for directions to the SRA to choose one of the two competing
builders and developers in compliance with the directions of the Apex
Court in its order dated November 7, 2006. It is interesting to note
that Mr.Mane did not implead M/s.Sigtia and M/s.Keya Developers as
also the Society in the petition.
2. The controvery in all these petitions arise in the following
circumstances:-
Under the General Body Resolution dated October 19, 2000 the
proposed society appointed M/s.Sigtia as developer and Mr.Bipin
Khatri as an Architect for rehabilitation of the slum known as
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
6
Premnagar situate at Vile Parle on the said plot. The said plot belongs
to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). By
notification dated May 24, 2001 published in the Maharashtra
Government Gazette on August 2, 2001, the Additional Collector
(Encroachment) and the Competent Authority, Mumbai Suburban
District declared Premnagar Co-operative Housing Society (proposed),
S.V.Road, Vile-parle (W), Mumbai as slum area under Section 4 of the
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-
development) Act, 1971 (for short hereinafter referred to as “Act”).
The general body of the Society passed a resolution on September 8,
2001 noting that Mr.Vinodbhai Sigtia (Director of M/s.Sigtia) took
efforts in declaring their area as slum area and the Resolution Nos.5
and 6 of October 19, 2000 were reaffirmed. Agreement was executed
between the slum dwellers on the suit plot being the party of one part
and M/s.Sigtia being the party of other part on September 15, 2001.
Clause 4 of the Agreement deals with the ‘Appointment’ and reads
thus:
“Subject to acceptance by the SRA, the party of other part
will be treated as a developer to develop the property as::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
7per SRA”.
Clause 5 thereof provides for ‘Consent’ and reads thus:
“Slum-dwellers hereby agree and give consent to participate
in SRA as per DCR (10), Appendix IV”.
Clause 6(i) casts obligation on developer to appoint suitable
architect. Clause 7(i) casts obligation on the slum dwellers to confirm
that they have not entered into any writing or arrangement for Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme of the said slum, with any other person except
with the party of the other part. Clause 12 thereof states that the
agreement is an irrevocable consent given by the slum dwellers in
favour of the party of the other part for implementation of the SRS
and an Agreement and consent to participate in SRS.
3. It is the case of M/s.Sigtia that their Architect submitted proposal
alongwith Annexure I, II and III complete in all respects to the SRA on
September 11, 2002. After ensuring the completeness of the proposal
submitted, the computerised File Number is allotted to the Scheme.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
8
The Assistant Engineer, SRA, found M/s.Sigtia’s proposal in order and
accordingly gave computerised No.K-W/MCGM/0008/20021003 and
directed payment of scrutiny fees for Annexures I, II and III as
required by clause 11 of the Guidelines. It is the case of M/s.Sigtia
that the proposal submitted by them was accepted in terms of clause
11 thereof and accordingly scrutiny fee of Rs.19,750/- was paid by
them. On October 10, 2002, the draft Annexure II was forwarded by
the Deputy Collector, SRA, to the Additional Collector
(Encroachment), who is designated as a sole competent authority for
deciding eligibility for verification and certification of Annexure II.
The affidavit-cum declaration was given by individual slum dwellers
with their spouse on November 26, 2002 declaring that they will give
cooperation to the Architect and M/s.Sigtia. Individual tripartite
agreement was entered into between the Society, M/s.Sigtia and
individual slum dwellers with their spouse on November 26, 2002.
Clause (xv) of the said agreement recorded that for executing the
work, an irrevocable power of attorney was given to M/s.Sigtia. The
Additional Collector (Encroachment), 2nd Respondent herein after
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
9
visiting the site and verifying the documents, certified Annexure II
wherein it is noted that out of 565 protected/ eligible structures, 438
slum dwellers had given consent to M/s.Sigtia for the scheme which
was more than 77% as against required 70% as per clause 2 of the
Guidelines. On February 24, 2004 the Finance Controller of SRA
approved M/s.Sigtia’s Annexure III and certified that they are
financially sound for implementing the Scheme. On February 26,
2004 the society gave an undertaking on solemn affirmation that it is
satisfied with the performance of M/s.Sigtia and they would continue
with them and the Architect till the project is completed. The Society
executed irrevocable power of attorney in favour of M/s.Sigtia
confirming earlier irrevocable power of attorney dated April 23, 2002.
It recorded that due to sustained efforts of the Directors of M/s.Sigtia,
a lot of progress was achieved and the Society was awaiting issuance
of LOI. While the SRA was in process of issuing the LOI to M/s.Sigtia,
Mr.Jagtap & Others instituted Writ Petition No.988 of 2004 in this
Court on March 29, 2004, questioning among others (i) the election
of the office bearers of the Society, (ii) Annexure II issued in favour of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
10
the Society, (iii) 70% consent of Slum dwellers in favour of M/s.Sigtia
and (iv) Technical and financial competence of M/s.Sigtia.
4. The SRA issued supplementary Annexure II on April 16, 2004
excluding portion of land covered by the Playground Reservation and
hutments situate thereon from the earlier Annexure II, in view of the
orders passed by this Court in the proceedings restraining the
utilisation of green spaces for SRA projects. As per this
supplementary Annexure II, there are total 943 structures on the said
plot of which 442 are censussed/protected. These are eligible
structures for allotment under the Scheme. It is the case of
M/s.Sigtia that a scrutiny report was prepared by the Executive
Engineer, SRA on May 7, 2004 enclosing therewith draft LOI and was
submitted to CEO, SRA for his approval. Copy of this was marked to
Chief Officer, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
(MHADA), among other officers. In Writ petition No.988 of 2004 by
order dated July 1, 2004 this Court directed the SRA to submit the
report regarding financial and technical capability of M/s.Sigtia for
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
11
implementing the Scheme. On July 28, 2004 the CEO of SRA, after
hearing all the parties in the said petition, submitted a report to this
Court. In the said report it was concluded that M/s.Sigtia has financial
and technical expertise and has complied with both conditions of
Annexure III. Report also recorded submissions made by the Advocate
on behalf of the Society before the SRA that the Society was satisfied
with the progress of the project undertaken by M/s.Sigtia. On August
21, 2004, the Executive Enginer III of SRA resubmitted the draft LOI
to the CEO of the SRA for his approval after the Chief Minister’s stay
order was vacated. On September 15, 2004 the CEO made
endorsement to the following effect:
“The High Court had asked CEO SRA for certain opinion.
We are aware that the Scheme is subjudice. It will be better
if we await the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court”.
5. By judgment and order dated March 11, 2005 this Court finally
disposed of Writ Petition No.988 of 2004. This Court recorded
submissions made on behalf of the petitioners therein to the effect
that the Committee Members of the Society in collusion with
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
12
M/s.Sigtia defrauded the residents of the Society; that the office
bearers of the Society were not elected by the General Body; that no
General Body meetings were held by the Society, nor the election of
the Managing Committee was held. The Court also noted the
submissions made on behalf of the petitioners therein that 70% of the
eligible slum dwellers have not supported the Scheme. On the other
hand, on behalf of the Society it was submitted that it had taken all
the necessary precaution and after considerable efforts ultimately
approached the SRA and are now waiting anxiously for allotment of
tenements. This Court recorded that the SRA was satisfied that the
requisite 70% occupiers of the slum area have come forward and
reposed confidence in M/s.Sigtia. Even the apprehension raised by the
petitioners therein about the capacity and capability of M/s.Sigtia was
taken care of by calling upon the CEO of SRA to once again verify
and submit report. The Court also directed M/s.Sigtia to deposit an
amount of Rs.2.50 crores as Interest Free Security Deposit so as to
ensure the implementation of the Scheme. Thus all the requisite
measures for protecting the interest of the eligible slum dwellers were
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
13
taken and ultimately this Court dismissed the writ petition.
6. As noted earlier, on September 15, 2004 the CEO of SRA made an
endorsement that since the matter is subjudice before this Court they
would await the judgment. Even after the disposal of the writ petition
No.988 of 2004 on March 11, 2005, the SRA did not issue the LOI
though all the requisite formalities were completed. Out of nine
petitioners in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004, Nazir Khan filed Special
Leave Petition, being SLP(C) No.11318 of 2005 before the Apex Court
on May 13, 2005 against the decision of this Court dated March 11,
2005 in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004. On July 18, 2005 the Apex
Court issued notice and granted stay to this Court’s order dated March
11, 2005. The said SLP was withdrawn on September 26, 2005. Four
other petitioners out of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004
filed SLP No.19848 of 2005 and obtained interim stay on September
19, 2005 from the Apex Court. In view of this stay order, M/s.Sigtia
could not take any further steps towards the implementation of the
Scheme. It appears that in that SLP the Society filed an application
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
14
being I.A.No.5 praying for issuance of direction to the SRA to consider
and sanction the Scheme prepared by the Society alongwith M/s.Keya
Developers. It further appears that the said I.A.was dismissed. The
SRA had filed affidavit in SLP No.19848 of 2005 on January 4, 2006
interalia contending that it had not taken cognizance of letter dated
June 6, 2005 of the Society alleging that the development agreement
in favour of M/s.Sigtia was terminated. Eventually, SLP No.19848 of
2005 was dismissed as withdrawn on April 13, 2006.
7. During pendency of SLP 19848 of 2005, on behalf of the Society
notices dated April 26, 2005 and June 6, 2005 purporting to revoke
the development agreement and the power of attorney executed in
favour of M/s.Sigtia were given. This was replied by M/s.Sigtia on
June 15, 2005 questioning the authority of the persons purporting to
terminate and revoke the said development agreement and power of
attorney. Since the SRA was not taking further steps of issuance of the
LOI M/s.Sigtia made a representation to the State Government on
June 10, 2005. Before the Principal Secretary of the Housing
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
15
Department, Government of Maharashtra, the Chief Executive Officer
of the SRA, representatives of the Society and the representatives of
M/s.Sigtia among others were present. After carefully considering the
documents presented before him and after hearing all the parties, the
Principal Secretary passed an order on June 20, 2005 directing the
SRA to issue LOI with further directions to the CEO of SRA as also
M/s.Sigtia to ensure compliance of the order of this Court dated
March 11, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004. This order is
not questioned by anybody till date.
8. As noted earlier, the second SLP was dismissed as withdrawn on April
13, 2006. After dismissal of the SLP and vacation of the stay,
M/s.Sigtia wrote to the SRA on April 25, 2006 offering to deposit Rs.
2.5 crores as Interest Free Security Deposit as directed by this Court
on March 11, 2005. M/s.Sigtia requested the SRA to issue LOI. It is at
this stage the Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 was filed in this Court by
Jagtap and nine others against the CEO of SRA being the Respondent
No.1, and the Society being the Respondent No.2, M/s.Keya
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
16
Developers being the Respondent No.3 and the MCGM being the
Respondent NO.4. M/s.Sigtia were not made party in this proceeding.
One of the prayers in that petition was to the following effect:-
“(a) to issue writ of certiorari or any other writ,
order/direction in the nature of certiorari against the
Respondent No.1 (CEO of SRA) to consider the proposal
submitted by Respondent No.3 (M/s.Keya Developers) andto issue letter of intent (LOI) for redevelopment of the said
property in favour of Respondent No.3.
9. It is relevant to note here that before the Apex Court the SRA had
made an affidavit on January 4, 2006 in SLP No.19848 of 2005
solemnly affirming that it had not taken cognizance of letter dated
June 6, 2005 issued by the Society purporting to terminate the
development agreement in favour of M/s.Sigtia. The SRA however
did not point out before this Court that M/s.Sigtia were necessary
party. It further appears that the SRA also did not file any affidavit in
that petition. On May 4, 2006 this Court (F.I.Rebello and Anoop V.
Mohta, JJ.) disposed of the said writ petition by passing order to the
following effect:-
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
17
“In the ordinary course we would not have entertained this
petition when there is a society who is responsible for thedevelopment. However, on behalf of Respondent No.2 the
learned counsel makes a statement that they had alreadycommunicated to Respondent No.1 to appoint Respondent No.3
as developer. The Respondent No.1 to call the parties in terms
of the judgment of this court and after hearing the partiesdispose of the application of Respondent No.2 according to law,
within a period of six weeks from today.”
10.We must record the consensus among all the learned counsel
appearing for the parties that the judgment referred in the above
order, is the judgment dated March 11, 2005 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No.988 of 2004. Even otherwise, this fact becomes
abundantly clear from the perusal of the order of the Hon’ble Apex
Court dated November 7, 2006.
11.Jagtap & others preferred SLP No.10281 of 2006 before the Apex
Court against the order dated May 4, 2006 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006. Even before the Apex Court M/s.Sigtia
were not made party and once again it appears that the SRA did not
point out before the Apex Court that M/s.Sigtia were necessary party
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
18
particularly when the order dated May 4, 2006 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 required SRA to call the parties in
terms of the judgment of this Court and after hearing the parties to
dispose of the application of M/s.Keya Developers. Even the SRA did
not point out to the Apex Court that there was no proposal of
M/s.Keya Developers complete in all respects pending with the SRA.
On June 27, 2006 the Apex Court directed the SRA to issue LOI in
favour of M/s.Keya Developers. In the order the Apex Court recorded
grievance of the petitioner before it that despite no legal impediment,
SRA was not issuing the LOI in favour of M/s.Keya Developers despite
the request made by the Society. According to the petitioners, before
the Apex Court, it was merely giving replacement of previous
developers M/s.Sigtia who had not even started the project even after
almost eight years and whose agreement with the Society had come to
an end by efflux of time.
12.When M/s.Sigtia acquired knowledge of the Apex Court order dated
June 27, 2006 it made an application on June 30, 2006 for recalling
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
19
of the said order and also an application for impleadment in the SLP
No.10281 of 2006. In this application the SRA made an affidavit on
July 7, 2006 reiterating that it had not taken cognizance of the letters
dated April 27, 2005 and June 6, 2005 purporting to terminate
M/s.Sigtia’s appointment as developers. By judgment and order dated
November 7, 2006 the Apex Court recalled its earlier order dated June
27, 2006. It was held that M/s.Sigtia was necessary party to Writ
Petition No.1277 of 2006 as well as SLP No.10281 of 2006. The Apex
Court recorded that the order dated June 20, 2005 passed by the
Principal Secretary, Home Department, was not challenged by anyone
before any forum. The order dated March 11, 2005 passed by this
Court in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004 had attained finality and that as
on April 13, 2006 there was no proposal of M/s.Keya Developers
before the SRA. The Apex Court further recorded the submission that
the development agreement in favour of M/s.Sigtia came to an end on
April 25, 2005 by efflux of time. In this context, it was observed that
clause 2.2 of the development agreement must be read as a whole and
when so read, it would be clear that the developer (M/s.Sigtia) was to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
20
start the actual construction after issuance of the commencement
certificate by the authority. Therefore, the period of three years must
be construed to begin from the date when the commencement
certificate is issued and not from the date of the execution of the
agreement. The Apex Court also noted that even the SRA to whom
letter dated June 6, 2005 was addressed, in its counter affidavit filed
before the Apex Court in the said proceeding stated that they did not
take notice of the said letter of termination as the letter was not
supported by the relevant resolution of the Society. Eventually, the
Apex Court passed order directing the SRA to call two developers
viz.M/s.Keya and M/s.Sigtia, as directed by the order in Writ Petition
988 of 2004 dated March 11, 2005 and the order dated May 4, 2006
in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006, and disposed off their applications
for issuing the LOI and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with
the Act and also strictly following the procedure for submission,
processing and approval of the Scheme and to award LOI to the
developer who satisfies the required qualifications, conditions,
regulations and the provisions of the Act. The SRA was also directed
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
21
to consider as to whether the guidelines and other conditions were
fulfilled by the slum dwellers/the society/as well as by the developers
and issue notice to the society also and hear them and pass
appropriate speaking order within three months from the date of
passing of that order.
13.Pursunt to these directions the SRA heard all the concerned parties
and passed the impugned order on February 6, 2007. In the order the
SRA recorded findings to the following effect:
(i) By resolution dated May 29, 2005 passed by the General Body of
the Society, M/s.Keya Developers were proposed as the new
developers for implementation of the Scheme. However, records of the
SRA indicate that M/s.Keya Developers had submitted their proposal
with the certified Annexure II which had also been submitted earlier
by M/s.Sigtia Developers. In the absence of certification of M/s.Keya
Developers Annexure II by the Competent Authority which was
required to be submitted by M/s.Keya Developers to the SRA
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
22
alongwith their proposal, it would not be possible to conclusively
establish that M/s.Keya Developers indeed enjoyed support of more
than 70% of the eligible slum dwellers of the Society.
(ii)The validity of the General Body Resolution dated May 29, 2005 of
the Society remains to be finally decided since the proceedings are
pending before this Court,
(iii)In view of the termination of development agreement by the
Society on account of efflux of time, both the contending developers
vis.M/s.Sigtia Developers and M/s.Keya Developers had not fulfilled
necessary and sufficient conditions to be declared as competent
developer since as of date they had not enjoyed undisputed support of
more than 70% of eligible slum dwellers by way of both (a) General
Body Resolution of the Society which is formed for identification of
the competent developer, (b) Annexure II independently certified by
the Competent Authority after observations of due procedure and on
verification of individual consent cum agreement signed by the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
23
eligible slum dwellers.
14.On these among other grounds, SRA ultimately held that in the given
circumstances identification of the competent developer can be done
diligently only through verification of the individual consent cum
agreement signed by the eligible slum dwellers followed by fresh
certification of Annexure II by the Competent Authority so as to
conclusively establish which developer enjoys the actual support of
more than 70% of the eligible slum dwellers of the Society.
15.We have heard Mr.Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.1036 of 2007 filed by
M/s.Sigtia. We have also heard Mr.Vinod Bobde, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.Sigtia Developers being the
Respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No.1589 of 2007 filed by M/s.Keya
Developers, and Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.1075 of 2007
filed by Jagtap and Others. We have also heard Mr.Janak
Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s.Keya
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
24
Developers, Mr.Rajeev Narulla, learned Counsel on behalf of the
Society, Mr.R.M.Kadam, learned Advocate General on behalf of the
SRA, Mr.F.Devitre, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
Jagtap & Others, and Mr.S.U.Kamdar, learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of Mr.Mane.
16.In support of Writ Petition No.1036 of 2007 filed by M/s.Sigtia
Developers, Mr.Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the
SRA exceeded its jurisdiction both in law as well as under the scope of
the authority delineated by the order of the Apex Court dated
November 7, 2006. The order of the SRA is totally contrary to this
Court’s order dated March 11, 2005 as also contrary to the Apex
Court’s orders dated April 13, 2006 and November 7, 2006. He
submitted that it was not open to the SRA to find out as on date who
has the support of 70% of the eligible slum dwellers. In his
submission, that exercise was already done and M/s.Sigtia had
fulfilled all the conditions and had submitted proposal complete in all
respects with Annexure I, II, III. Even after disposal of W.P.No.988 of
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
25
2004 on March 11, 2005 the SRA ought to have issued LOI when the
draft LOI was already prepared and the CEO was awaiting judgment
of this Court in W.P.No.988 of 2004. It was submitted it was not open
to the SRA now to start de-novo from the stage of Annexure II which
was duly certified as far back as on January 23, 2003. Annexure III
was duly approved by the Finance Controller of the SRA certifying
that M/s.Sigtia is financially sound for implementing the Scheme.
That apart, pursuant to this Court’s order in W.P.No.988 of 2004 the
CEO of the SRA submitted report on January 28, 2004 once again
concluding the financial and technical expertise of M/s.Sigtia and
that M/s.Sigtia Developers had complied with both the conditions of
Annexure III. The filing of second Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 was
with a malafide intention and really speaking the petitioners therein
misled this Court and also the Apex Court. He submitted that now
even the Apex Court recorded that M/s.Sigtia Developers were
necessary party in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 as also necessary
party to the SLP No.10281 of 2006. He further submitted that
M/s.Keya Developers did not submit requisite proposal complete in all
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
26
respects before the SRA so that their claim could be considered by the
SRA. Even in the order dated November 7, 2006 the Apex Court
recorded that as on April 13, 2006 M/s.Keya Developers did not
submit proposal to the SRA. He emphasised that when the SRA was
about to issue LOI in favour of M/s.Sigtia Writ Petition No.988 of
2004 was filed in this Court. That was dismissed on March 11, 2005
and eventually after dismissal of SLP, the said judgment attained
finality. When M/s.Sigtia were about to proceed further with the
implementation of the Scheme, another Writ Petition was filed being
Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 behind the back of M/s.Sigtia
Developers. In those proceedings, the SRA did not point out to this
Court or to the Apex Court that M/s.Sigtia Developers were necessary
party. This is more so when the SRA did not take cognizance of the
letters purporting to terminate the development agreement of
M/s.Sigtia Developers. In his submission, all this litigation could
have been avoided had the SRA pointed out before this Court in Writ
Petition No.1277 of 2006 that M/s.Sigtia were necessary party.
Mr.Chinoy was at pains to point out that SRA and M/s.Keya
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
27
Developers are equally responsible for creation of litigation. He
further submitted that considering the judgment of this Court dated
March 11, 2005 in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004 as also the order
dated May 4, 2006 in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 and the judgment
of the Apex Court dated November 7, 2006 in the I.A.in SLP No.10281
of 2006 the SRA has to consider the proposal of M/s.Sigtia
Developers, after considering the objections of M/s.Keya Developers,
the Society, Mr.Jagtap & Others, and Mr.Mane. He submitted that
since there is no proposal of M/s.Keya Developers in the eyes of law,
there is no question of SRA considering their proposal.
17.Mr.Bobde, learned Senior Counsel while supporting the submissions
advanced by Mr.Chinoy, invited our attention to the guidelines framed
by SRA. He submitted that M/s.Sigtia Developers carried out servey,
collected information of eligible slum dwellers and obtained
certification from the Additional Collector (Enc.) about the eligibility
of the slum dwellers. Once the Society appointed M/s.Sigtia
Developers to implement the Scheme who in turn appointed Architect
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
28
in consultation with the Society, the role of the Society becomes
minimal. The developer so chosen has to act as promoter in terms of
Guideline No.6. In terms of Guideline No.7 the promoter has to enter
into the agreement with every individual slum dweller while putting
up the slum rehabilitation proposal to the SRA for approval. The
Architect appointed by the promoter in consultation with the Society
has to prepare Plans as per the DCR 33 (10). As per the Guideline No.
8 it is expected from the Architect to ensure community participation
in preparation of the building plans. After completing all the
formalities, Annexure I, II and III were submitted by their Architect to
the SRA. The designated Engineer of the SRA has to ensure
completeness of the proposal submitted and then computerised File
Number is allotted to the Scheme which conclusively establishes that
the proposal as submitted was complete in all respects. After scrutiny,
the computerised No.K-W/MCGM/0008/20021003 was given to the
proposal submitted by M/s.Sigtia Developers, whereas in respect of
M/s.Keya Developers no such computerised number was allotted
signifying that the proposal, if any, submitted by M/s.Keya Developers
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
29
was not complete in all respects and consequently was not at all the
proposal in the eyes of law. He also invited our attention to the
Circular No.SRA/4 dated August 27, 1997 and the relevant portion
thereof reads thus:-
“…..It has therefore, become necessary, that henceforth, the
Developer/Architect will have to submit the proposal to S.R.A.,complete in all respects so that they will be in a position to receive
LOI/Layout and IOA of 1st (first) rehabilitation buildingsimultaneously. The validity period for all three will be reduced to
three months only, during which time he has to comply with the
requirements required for starting of work and come forward withthe request to obtain C.C.u/s.44 & 45 of M.R. & T.P.Act. Therefore,
by direction of C.E.O. (SRA) the proposal which is incomplete for
grant of approval of Layout/IOA and approval of 1st rehabilitationbuilding will not be allowed to be submitted and will be accepted
only after annexing all the required documents for issue of aboveapproval. A copy of Annexure required for approval of LOI/Layout
and IOA is annexed herewith”
18.On the basis of the above circular, Mr.Bobde, learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the proposal which is incomplete in the grant of
approval of the layout/intimation of approval and the approval of the
first rehabilitation building is not to be allowed to be submitted. The
proposal of M/s.Keya Developers which was incomplete ought not to
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
30
have been allowed to be submitted by the SRA. He also invited our
attention to Appendix IV which are applicable for
redevelopment/construction of accommodation for hutment dwellers
through the developer/co-operative housing societies, and in
particular clauses 1.6, 1.7, 2.2. He submitted that in the instant case,
the proposal of M/s.Sigtia stood statutorily approved on March 26,
2004 in terms of clause 2.2 thereof, which reads thus:-
“The approval to the Project shall be given by the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority within a period of 30 days from the
date of submission of all relevant documents. In the event of a
failure by Slum Rehabilitation Authority to do so, the saidapproval shall be deemed to have been given, provided the
Project is in accordance with the provisions in this Appendix”.
19.On the other hand, Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the Society had legally terminated the development
agreement executed by the Society in favour of M/s.Sigtia. The
General Body of the Society had passed a resolution appointing
M/s.Keya Developers as a promoter who in turn, in consultation with
the Society appointed Architect. M/s.Keya Developers has necessary
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
31
support of 70% eligible slum dwellers of the Society. He submitted
that M/s.Keya Developers has entered into an agreement with the
individual slum dwellers and has also necessary Annexure II duly
certified by the Competent Authority viz.the Additional Collector
(Enc). He submitted that M/s.Keya Developers had submitted a
proposal to the SRA as would be evident from the reply from SRA on
the query raised under the Right to Information Act to the effect that
M/s.Keya Developers had submitted proposal with SRA. He therefore
submitted that in terms of the orders of this Court dated March 11,
2005 and May 4, 2006 and the order of the Apex Court dated
November 7, 2006 the SRA is required to consider the proposal of
M/s.Keya Developers as also the proposal of M/s.Sigtia. He also
submits that the impugned order dated February 6, 2007 passed by
the SRA deserves to be quashed and set aside with the direction to
the SRA to consider the proposals in terms of those orders.
20.Mr.Rajeev Narulla, learned Counsel for the Society has supported the
submissions advanced by Mr.Janak Dwarkadas and contended that
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
32
the Society has passed valid resolution appointing M/s.Keya
Developers as promoter after terminating the development agreement
executed in favour of M/s.Sigtia. Mr.F.Devitre, learned Senior Counsel
appearing of Mr.Jagtap & Others and Mr.Kamdar, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for Mr.Mane submitted that the impugned order
dated February 6, 2007 passed by the SRA deserves to be quashed and
set aside.
21. During the course of hearing, learned Advocate General conceded
before us that the proposal of M/s.Keya Developers is not complete in
all respects. In view of the contention raised by M/s.Keya Developers
that they have submitted proposal to the SRA and the contention of
M/s.Sigtia that no such proposal is submitted by M/s.Keya
Developers, we directed the learned Counsel for the SRA to produce
the original record for our perusal. We have ourselves perused the
original record and find that under covering letter dated July 16, 2005
addressed by Mr.Anil Chavda, Architect appointed by M/s.Keya
Developers, a proposal for redevelopment of the said plot was
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
33
submitted, and we find that alongwith that proposal no agreements
entered into between M/s.Keya Developers and the individual slum
dwellers are enclosed. Even in the impugned order the SRA has
observed that M/s.Keya Developers has submitted their proposal with
certified Annexure II which was also submitted by M/s.Sigtia. In other
words the self same Annexure II of M/s.Sigtia Developers is utilised by
M/s.Keya Developers. Considering the Circular dated August 27, 1997
extracted hereinabove, the SRA ought not to have accepted the
incomplete proposal of M/s.Keya Developers. Even the Apex Court in
the order dated November 7, 2006 recorded that as on April 13, 2006
M/s.Keya Developers had not submitted a proposal. After satisfying
ourselves, we find that as on date the proposal of M/s.Keya
Developers is not complete in all respects and cannot be treated as a
proposal in the eyes of law. We emphasis this fact as in our considered
opinion the parties to Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 misled this Court
in obtaining the order on May 4, 2006. In fact the SRA being the
statutory authority ought to have pointed out to this Court that the
prayer made in that petition could not have been entertained in the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
34
absence of proposal of M/s.Keya Developers. We are further of the
considered opinion that even the Apex Court was misled by the parties
before it when it passed the order on June 27, 2006 in SLP No.10281
of 2006 directing issuance of LOI to M/s.Keya Developers. The entire
litigation from the stage of Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 onwards
could have been avoided had the SRA brought these facts before the
Court. We are totally disappointed with the manner in which the
SRA has conducted itself before this Court in Writ Petition No.1277 of
2006 and also before the Apex Court in SLP 10281 of 2006. The
litigation from Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 onwards is a creation of
SRA.
22.The procedure for Submission, Processing and Approval of Slum
Rehabilitation Schemes has been laid down by the State Government.
Clause (1) of this Scheme reads as under:-
“All slums and pavements whose inhabitants’ names and structures
appear in the electoral roll prepared with reference to 1st January,
1995 or a date prior thereto and who are actual occupants of the
hutments are eligible for the slum rehabilitation schemes.”
Perusal of the above clause shows that the slum dwellers whose names
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
35
appear in the electoral rolls prepared with reference to the date as on
January 1, 1995 or a date prior thereto, and who are actual occupants
of the hutments are eligible for the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
23.Clause (2) reads as under:
“70% or more of the eligible hutment-dwellers in a slum or
pavement in a viable stretch at one place have to show theirwillingness to join slum rehabilitation scheme and come together to
form a co-operative housing society of all eligible hutment-
dwellers through a resolution to that effect. The followingresolution should be adopted:
(a) Resolution electing a chief promoter.
(b)Resolution giving the chief promoter authority to apply for
reservation of name for co-operative housing society
(c)To collect share capital (Rs.50/- per member for slum societies)
and Rs.1/- as entrance fee and to open account in Mumbai District
Central Co-operative/Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd.
(any branch).”
Perusal of clause (2) shows that atleast 70% of such eligible slum
dwellers have to express their willingness to join Slum Rehabilitation
Scheme and have to come together to form a co-operative housing
society and all the slum dwellers have to pass a resolution and elect a
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
36
Chief Promoter. Before amendment of the guidelines by Circular
dated August 27, 1997 a duty was cast on the Chief Promoter, officer
bearers and the members of the proposed society to collect documents
in relation to the title of the land on which the slum is situate, as also
the information about the structure and the slum dwellers and this
information has to be filled-in the form, Annexure II. Annexure II
gives details of the land occupied by the slum dwellers, number of
and the type of structures such as residential, industrial, commercial
etc. and the list of eligible and illegible occupants and the consent of
slum dwellers to join the Scheme. By Circular dated August 27, 1997
this procedure has been changed and now even the Architect or the
Developer can submit Annexure II to the Competent Authority. The
relevant portion of the Circular dated August 27, 1997 reads as
under:-
“In order to facilitate the disposal it has also been decided
Architect/Developer or Society hereby may submit Annexure II in
duplicate, as prepared by them in the prescribed proforma signed
by Owner/Developer/C.P/N.G.O., a copy of which will be
forwarded to the Competent Authority who issues Annexure II for
getting it certified. The proposal will be scrutinized on the basis of
Annexure-II submitted by the Architect. However, approval will be
granted only after receipt of certified Annexure-II from the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
37
Competent Authority.”
24.As a result of this amendment of August 27, 1997 clause (4) of the
Scheme has also been modified and the relevant portion of that reads
as under:
“As a simplification measure, this procedure is now discontinued
and Annexure-II format is now required to be filled up by the
promoter/co-operative housing society itself for submitting building
proposal to SRA, so that the scrutiny of the proposal and
certification of Annexure-II can start simultaneously. Annexure-II
needs to be submitted in duplicate. As a measure of further
simplification, Additional Collector (Encroachment) is being
designated as the sole Competent Authority for deciding eligibility
and for taking eviction action against non-participants in slum
rehabilitation scheme.”
Thus, now Annexure II can be submitted by the Promoter
i.e.Developer who has been appointed by the Society and the power to
scrutinize that information contained in Annexure II is now conferred
on the Additional Collector (Encroachment) and he is the sole
Competent Authority to hold that enquiry.
25.In the present case, Annexure II was submitted by the Architect of
M/s.Sigtia. The Additional Collector after scrutinizing the application
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
38
certified Annexure II submitted by the Architect of M/s.Sigtia. Perusal
of clause (7) of the Scheme shows that the Developer/promoter who
is chosen by the Society has to enter into agreement with every
eligible slum dweller while putting up the slum rehabilitation proposal
before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for approval. Now, on
reading of the Scheme as amended in 1997 the position that emerges
is this:-
(i)70% of the eligible slum dwellers come together and decide to
form a Co-operative Society. They nominate one of them as Chief
Promoter. The proposed society, in case it decides to get slum
developed through a Developer, they identify the Developer;
(ii)The Developer so nominated enters into an agreement with
every eligible slum dwellers;
(iii)The Developer in consultation with the proposed Co-operative
Housing Society of the slum dwellers, prepares a plan for
development of the slum area as per Development Control
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
39
Regulation 33 (10) and nominates Architect;
(iv) This Architect or the Developer/promoter himself collects the
information required to be included in Annexure I (as per clause 9
of the Scheme Annexure I gives details about the ownership of
land, details of plot area, details of existing hutments and their
type, computation of tenement density, extent and type of
reservations, amenities, FSI available, number of tenements to be
constructed including calculation of TDR etc.), and Annexure II.
(v) Power to scrutinize the information contained in Annexures I
and II is vested solely in the Additional Collector (Encroachment)
who scrutinizes Annexure I and II;
(vi) Power to scrutinize Annexure III is with the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority. So far as contents of Annexure III are
concerned, it is Rule 10 of the Scheme which is relevant, which
reads as under:-
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
40
“Annexure-III is prescribed to assess the financial capability of
the promoter. The items contained in Annexure-III are self
explanatory. Keeping in view the sensitivity of this information, itis kept strictly confidential by SRA.”
(vii) Financial capability of the Promoter/Developer is to be certified
by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and it is only thereafter that the
stage of issuing the Letter of Intent comes.
26. In so far as present case is concerned, it is common ground that so far
as M/s.Sigtia is concerned, Annexure I, II and III submitted by them
have been duly scrutinized and certified. A challenge was raised after
scrutiny of Annexure III in this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.988
of 2004. That petition has been dismissed. Therefore, as a
consequence thereof the Slum Rehabilitation Authority should have
proceeded to consider the issuance of Letter of Intent. Because there
was delay on the part of the SRA in issuing the Letter of Intent the
Government was approached and it is an admitted position that the
Government has issued a direction after hearing the Society and the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority to issue the Letter of Intent in favour of
M/s.Sigtia. That order of the State Government has not been
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
41
challenged by anybody till this date. Even in the order of the
Supreme Court the Supreme Court has also noted that, that order
holds the field. What is pertinent to be noted is that the SRA in its
order which is impugned in the petition does not even refer to the
order of the State Government directing the SRA to issue Letter of
Intent in favour of M/s.Sigtia. In our opinion, the order of the State
Government which holds the filed was a relevant document, specially
when pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court the SRA is
considering the question whether the Letter of Intent is to be issued
in favour of M/s.Sigtia or not.
27.So far as judgment of the Supreme Court dated November 7, 2006 is
concerned, a careful reading of the judgment reveals that the
Supreme Court has recorded following findings:
(i)That the agreement between M/s.Sigtia and the Society has not
come to end by efflux of time on April 25, 2005;
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
42
(ii)That the SRA stated before the Supreme Court that it did not
take any notice of letters of the Society terminating the agreement
with M/s.Sigtia dated April 25, 2005 and June 6, 2005;
(iii)That the order dated March 11, 2005 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No.988 of 2004 attained finality;
(iv)Till March 13, 2006 the SRA did not have before it any proposal
submitted by M/s.Keya Developers;
(v)That M/s.Sigtia was necessary party to the writ petition being
W.P.No.1277 of 2006 before this Court and in the SLP No.10281 of
2006 before the Apex Court;
(vi)That it is for the SRA to decide whether the alleged termination
of the agreement between the proposed Society and M/s.Sigtia has
any effect on the entitlement or otherwise of the Letter of Intent to
M/s.Sigtia;
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
43
(vii)That at the hearings held before the Principal Secretary,
Government of Maharashtra on June 15, 2005, the representatives
of the proposed Society did not say anything about the purported
termination of the agreement between M/s.Sigtia and the proposed
Society;
(viii)That the order of the Principal Secretary, Government of
Maharashtra directing issuance of Letter of Intent to M/s.Sigtia has
gone unchallenged;
(ix)That the Supreme Court has directed the SRA to call M/s.Sigtia
and M/s.Keya Developers for hearing on the question as to whom
the Letter of Intent is to be issued in terms of the order of this
Court dated March 11, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004
and the order dated May 4, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No.1277
of 2006.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
44
28.So far as the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004 is
concerned, as per that order, the scrutiny of Annexures I, II and III of
the proposal submitted by M/s.Sigtia was over, and the Slum
Rehabilitatin Authority was to consider the question of issuance of
Letter of Intent in favour of M/s.Sigtia. So far as order dated May 4,
2006 in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 is concerned, that order reads
as under:-
“In the ordinary course we would not have entertained this
petition when there is a society who is responsible for the
development. However, on behalf of Respondent No.2 their
learned counsel makes a statement that they had already
communicated to Respondent No.1 to appoint Respondent No.3 as
developer by Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.1 to call the
parties in terms of the judgment of this court and after hearing the
parties, dispose of the application of Respondent No.2 according to
law, within the period of six weeks from today.”
29. Perusal of the above quoted order makes it clear that by that order the
Respondent No.1 in that petition i.e.the SRA has been directed to call
the parties in terms of the judgment of this Court viz.judgment of this
Court dated March 11, 2005 in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004, and
after hearing the parties to dispose of the application of Respondent
No.2 in that petition in accordance with law. The Respondent No.2 in
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
45
that petition was the proposed Society. Thus it becomes necessary to
find out what was the direction contained in the order of the High
Court dated March 11, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004.
In this regard, in our opinion, Paragraph No.20 of that order is
relevant, which reads as under:-
“In the light of the aforesaid discussion, in our view, it is not
necessary to either quash and set aside the scheme or issue further
directions as sought in the petition. Needless to state that the
scheme is presently at primary stage. Final approvals have not been
granted on the own showing of SRA. If SRA decides not to issue
LOI in favour of Respondent No.7, it will always be open for the
parties to submit a fresh development scheme. For the present, we
do not find that this is a fit case for interference with the tentative
decision of the SRA.”
30. Perusal of the above paragraph 20 shows that after the judgment of
the High Court, the SRA was to consider the question of granting
approval to the Scheme pending before the SRA. The Scheme pending
at that time was the Scheme submitted by M/s.Sigtia, and the
question of submission of another Scheme would have arisen if the
SRA had decided not to issue Letter of Intent in favour of M/s.Sigtia.
It is thus clear that the first issue that the SRA was to consider is
whether M/s.Sigtia is entitled to issuance of Letter of Intent. No doubt
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
46
as per the order of the Supreme Court M/s.Keya Developers will also
have to be heard on that issue, but there is no question of the issue
whether M/s.Keya Developers is entitled to Letter of Intent being
considered unless and until the SRA comes to the conclusion that
M/s.Sigtia is not entitled to get the Letter of Intent. In other words,
the SRA will have to first hear the parties on the issue whether
M/s.Sigtia is entitled to Letter of Intent. If the SRA comes to the
conclusion that M/s.Sigtia is entitled to Letter of Intent, then that will
be the end of the matter, and the order of this Court and the order of
the Supreme Court will stand complied with. However, in case the
SRA comes to the conclusion that M/s.Sigtia is not entitled to issuance
of Letter of Intent then it will have to take up the issue whether
M/s.Keya Developers is entitled to issuance of Letter of Intent for
consideration. The application of M/s.Sigtia will have to be heard and
considered first, and it is only thereafter depending on the result of
that application, that the application of M/s.Keya Developers can be
considered, assuming that M/s.Keya Developers has made any such
application because we have recorded a finding above that no
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
47
complete application submitted by M/s.Keya Developers is on the
original record. No doubt, while considering the question whether
M/s.Sigtia is entitled to issuance of Letter of Intent, the question
whether the agreement in favour of M/s.Sigtia has been validly
terminated or not will have be be considered.
31. We have to note here that before us it was clearly submitted that in
the Scheme which is framed by the State Government the proposed
Society does not enter into any agreement with the Developer. The
Developer has to enter into the agreement with the eligible individual
slum dwellers, and as the agreement between the Society and the
Developer is not contemplated there is no question of appointment of
the Developer coming to an end because of any resolution passed by
the proposed Housing Society. It was also submitted that in the
present case M/s.Sigtia has in fact entered into agreement with the
eligible individual slum dwellers and it is not anybody’s case that
those agreements have been terminated by eligible individual slum
dwellers. It was also argued that as the eligible individual slum
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
48
dwellers have entered into the agreement with M/s.Sigtia, unless
such slum dwellers terminate the agreement entered into by them
with M/s.Sigtia in accordance with law, they cannot enter into similar
agreement with any other person. It was also submitted that the
proposed Housing Society which is yet to be registered does not exist
independently of its members, and therefore, no resolution passed by
such body has any validity, unless and until each and every person
who have decided to join in the formation of the Soceity joins in
passing the resolution. However, we do not propose to go into these
questions because these question can be raised by the parties if they
are so advised before the SRA, and while deciding the question of
entitlement of M/s.Sigtia to the issuance of Letter of Intent the SRA
will have to decide these issues also.
32.In our opinion, the impugned order dated February 6, 2007 passed by
the SRA is unsustainable. The approach of the SRA to find out as on
date who has support of 70% eligible slum dwellers is unsustainable.
In our opinion, that stage was already over and on record there is a
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:16 :::
49
complete proposal of M/s.Sigtia Developers.
33.In our opinion, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set
aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
Matter is remanded to the SRA. The SRA to decide the proposal of
M/s.Sigtia Developers in terms of the order dated March 11, 2005
passed in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004 as also the order dated May 4,
2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006, and the
order dated November 7, 2006 passed by the Apex Court in SLP No.
10281 of 2006, and on the basis of the record as it stands today, as
expeditiously as possible, and in any case within a period of three
months from today. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept
open. The SRA will consider the contentions of the parties and will
record reasons and give findings. While considering the proposal of
M/s.Sigtia Developers, the SRA will consider the objections of
M/s.Keya Developers, as also of the Society, Mr.Jagtap & Others and
Mr.Mane. If the SRA decides not to issue LOI in favour of M.s.Sigtia
Developers, it will be open for the parties to submit fresh development
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:17 :::
50
Scheme as observed by this Court in paragraph No.20 of the judgment
and order dated March 11, 2005 in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004.
Rule is made absolute in all the Petitions. However, in the facts and
circumstances of these petitions, there shall be no order as to costs.
34.At this stage request is made by the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.
1075/2007 & 1589/2007 for staying of the operation of this judgment
& order. In our opinion, no useful purpose will be served by staying
the hearing of the matter by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
However, as the parties want to approach the Higher Court, it will be
appropriate to direct the Slum Rehabilitation Authority not to make its
final order for a period of six weeks from today, though it can go on
with the hearing of the matter in terms of this judgment.
(D.K.DESHMUKH,J.)
(R.G.KETKAR,J.)
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 15:05:17 :::