{"id":179900,"date":"2009-09-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009"},"modified":"2019-04-04T09:40:44","modified_gmt":"2019-04-04T04:10:44","slug":"ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"M\/S.Sigtia Constructions … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S.Sigtia Constructions … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Bench: D.K. Deshmukh, Rajesh G. Ketkar<\/div>\n
                                       1\n\n\n\n\n                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n                       ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL  JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                     \n                    WRIT PETITION NO.1036 OF 2007\n\nM\/s.Sigtia Constructions Pvt.Ltd.                    .. Petitioner\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n           V\/s\nState of Maharashtra & Ors.                          .. Respondents\n                                   ALONGWITH\n                          WRIT PETITION NO.1075 OF 2007\n\n\n\n\n                                          \nRamchandra Mahadev Jagtap & Ors.\n                              ig                           .. Petitioners\n           V\/s\nThe Cheif Executive Officer,\nSlum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.                       .. Respondents\n                            \n                                WRIT PETITION NO.1589 OF 2007\n            \n\n\nKeya Developers and Construction Private Ltd.              .. Petitioners\n         \n\n\n\n           V\/s\nThe Chief Executive Officer,\nSlum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors.                       .. Respondents\n\n\n\n\n\n                           WRIT PETITION NO.2720 OF 2008\n\nChandrakant Sitaram Mane                                   .. Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n\n         V\/s\nSlum Rehabilitation Authority                              .. Respondent\n\n \n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::\n                                        2\n\n\n\n\nAppearances:\n\n\n\n\n                                                                             \n                                                     \nIn Writ Petition No.1036 of 2007:\n\nMr.Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr.Himanshu Kode i\/by M\/s.Shaunak \n\n\n\n\n                                                    \nSatpute & Co.for the Petitioner.\n\nMr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.G.D.Utangale i\/by M\/s.Utangale \n& Co.for Respondent Nos.4 and 5.\n\n\n\n\n                                          \nMr.Rajeev Narulla, Advocate i\/by M\/s.Jhangiani Narulla & Associates for \n                             \nRespondent No.7.\n\nMr.Janak  Dwarkadas,   Senior Advocate   with  Mr.J.P.Sen  i\/by  M\/s.Kanga & \n                            \nCo.for Respondent No.8.\n            \n\n\nIn Writ Petition No.1075 of 2007:\n         \n\n\n\nMr.F.Devitre,   Senior   Advocate   with   Mr.H.N.Thakore   i\/by   M\/s.Thakore \nJariwala and Associates for the Petitioners.\n\n\n\n\n\nMr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.G.D.Utangale i\/by M\/s.Utangale \n& Co.for Respondent No.1.\n\nMr.Janak  Dwarkadas,   Senior Advocate   with  Mr.J.P.Sen  i\/by  M\/s.Kanga & \n\n\n\n\n\nCo. for Respondent No.3.\n\nMr.C.U.Singh,   Senior   Advocate   with   Ms.Gunjan   Shah   i\/by   M\/s.Shaunak \nSatpute & Co.for Respondent No.4.\n\n\n\n\n                                                     ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::\n                                          3\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n                                                       \nIn Writ Petition No.1589 of 2007:\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \nMr.Janak  Dwarkadas,   Senior Advocate   with  Mr.J.P.Sen  i\/by  M\/s.Kanga & \nCo. for the Petitioners.\n\nMr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr.G.D.Utangale i\/by M\/s.Utangale \n\n\n\n\n                                            \n& Co.for Respondent No.1.\n                              \nMr.Vinod   Bobde,   Senior   Advocate   with   Mr.Sunil   Goel,   Mr.Sachin   Kadam \ni\/by M\/s.Shaunak Satpute & Co. for Respondent No.3.\n                             \nMr.K.K.Singhvi, Senior Advocate for Respondent No.4.\n            \n         \n\n\n\nIn Writ Petition No.2720 of 2008:\n\nMr.S.U.Kamdar,   Senior   Advocate   with   Ms.Alpana   Ghone   and   Mr.Khaitan \n\n\n\n\n\ni\/by M\/s.Anoop Khaitan & Co.for the Petitioners.\n\nMr.J.G.Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.1.\n\nMr.Himanshu Kode, Advocate with Mr.Anant Upadhyay i\/by M\/s.Shaunak \n\n\n\n\n\nSatpute & Co.for the Applicants in Chamber Summons No.3 of 2008.\n\n\n\n\n                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::\n                                               4\n\n\n\n\n                                                 CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH &\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                      \n                                                                R.G.KETKAR, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                   DATE   : 17th September, 2009.\n<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT:      (Per R.G.Ketkar, J.)<\/p>\n
    1. All these petitions challenge the order  dated February 6, 2007 passed <\/p>\n
      by   the   Chief   Executive   Officer,   Slum   Rehabilitation   Authority   (for <\/p>\n
      short “SRA”). The controversy in all these petitions relates to the grant <\/p>\n
      of   Letter   of   Intent   (for   short   “LOI”)   for   implementation   of   Slum <\/p>\n
      Rehabilitation   Scheme   (for   short   “Scheme”)   on   a   plot   bearing   CTS <\/p>\n
      Nos.439   to   442,   443,   444   (part),   447,   451,   452,   453A   and   454A <\/p>\n
      situate   at   village   Vile-parle,     Taluka   Andheri,   Mumbai   Suburban <\/p>\n
      District  (for  short  the  “said   plot”)    of the  proposed   Premnagar  Co-\n<\/p>\n
      operative   Housing   Society   (for   short   “Society),   therefore   all   these <\/p>\n
      petitions can be conveniently  disposed of by a common order.      Writ <\/p>\n
      petition No.1036 of 2007  is instituted by M\/s.Sigtia Constructions <\/p>\n
      Private   Limited   (for   short   “M\/s.Sigtia”).  Writ   petition   No.1075   of <\/p>\n
      2007  is   instituted   by   Mr.Ramchandra   Mahadev   Jagtap   and   nine <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
       Others (for short hereinafter referred to as”Jagtap & Ors.”) who are <\/p>\n
       eligible   slum   dwellers   and   are   residents   of   the   said   plot.      Writ <\/p>\n
       Petition No.1589 of 2007  is instituted by M\/s.Keya Developers and <\/p>\n
       Construction   Private   Limited   (for   short   hereinafter   referred   as <\/p>\n
       “M\/s.Keya Developers”). Writ Petition No.2720 of 2008 is instituted <\/p>\n
       by Mr.Chandrakant Sitaram Mane (hereinafter referred to as “Mane”), <\/p>\n
       challenging the order dated February 6, 2007 passed by the SRA, as <\/p>\n
       also for directions to the SRA to choose one of the two competing <\/p>\n
       builders and developers in compliance with the directions of the Apex <\/p>\n
       Court in its order dated November 7, 2006.   It is interesting to note <\/p>\n
       that Mr.Mane did not  implead M\/s.Sigtia and M\/s.Keya Developers as <\/p>\n
       also the Society in the petition.\n<\/p>\n
    2. The   controvery   in   all   these   petitions   arise   in   the   following <\/p>\n
       circumstances:-\n<\/p>\n
             Under the General Body Resolution dated October 19, 2000 the <\/p>\n
       proposed   society   appointed   M\/s.Sigtia   as   developer   and   Mr.Bipin <\/p>\n
       Khatri   as   an   Architect   for   rehabilitation   of   the   slum   known   as <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
    Premnagar situate at Vile Parle on the said plot. The said plot belongs <\/p>\n
    to   the   Municipal   Corporation   of   Greater   Mumbai   (MCGM).   By <\/p>\n
    notification   dated   May   24,   2001   published   in   the   Maharashtra <\/p>\n
    Government   Gazette   on   August   2,   2001,   the   Additional   Collector <\/p>\n
    (Encroachment)   and   the   Competent   Authority,   Mumbai   Suburban <\/p>\n
    District declared Premnagar Co-operative Housing Society (proposed), <\/p>\n
    S.V.Road, Vile-parle (W), Mumbai as slum area  under Section 4 of the <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra   Slum   Areas   (Improvement,   Clearance   and   Re-\n<\/p>\n
    development) Act, 1971 (for short hereinafter referred to as “Act”).\n<\/p>\n
    The general body of the Society passed a resolution on September 8, <\/p>\n
    2001   noting   that   Mr.Vinodbhai   Sigtia   (Director   of   M\/s.Sigtia)   took <\/p>\n
    efforts in declaring their area as slum area and the Resolution Nos.5 <\/p>\n
    and 6 of October 19, 2000 were reaffirmed.  Agreement was executed <\/p>\n
    between the slum dwellers on the suit plot being the party of one part <\/p>\n
    and M\/s.Sigtia being the party of other part on September 15, 2001.\n<\/p>\n
    Clause 4   of the Agreement deals with the ‘Appointment’ and reads <\/p>\n
    thus:\n<\/p>\n
                “Subject to acceptance by the SRA, the party of   other part
\n                will be treated as a developer to develop the property as <\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
                    per SRA”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       Clause 5 thereof provides for ‘Consent’ and reads thus:\n<\/p>\n
                  “Slum-dwellers hereby agree and give consent to participate
\n                  in SRA as per DCR (10), Appendix IV”.\n<\/p>\n
       Clause   6(i)  casts   obligation   on   developer   to   appoint   suitable <\/p>\n
       architect. Clause 7(i) casts obligation on the slum dwellers to confirm <\/p>\n
       that they have not entered into any writing or arrangement for Slum <\/p>\n
       Rehabilitation Scheme of the said slum, with any other person except <\/p>\n
       with the party of the  other part.  Clause 12  thereof states that the <\/p>\n
       agreement   is  an   irrevocable   consent   given   by   the   slum   dwellers   in <\/p>\n
       favour of the party of the other part for implementation of the SRS <\/p>\n
       and an Agreement and consent to participate in  SRS.\n<\/p>\n
    3. It   is   the   case   of   M\/s.Sigtia   that   their   Architect   submitted   proposal <\/p>\n
       alongwith Annexure I, II and III complete in all respects to the SRA on <\/p>\n
       September 11, 2002. After ensuring the completeness of the proposal <\/p>\n
       submitted, the computerised File Number is allotted to the Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             8<\/span><\/p>\n
    The Assistant Engineer, SRA, found M\/s.Sigtia’s proposal in order and <\/p>\n
    accordingly gave computerised No.K-W\/MCGM\/0008\/20021003 and <\/p>\n
    directed     payment   of   scrutiny   fees   for   Annexures   I,   II   and   III   as <\/p>\n
    required by clause 11 of the Guidelines. It is the case of M\/s.Sigtia <\/p>\n
    that the proposal submitted by them was accepted in terms of clause <\/p>\n
    11 thereof and accordingly scrutiny fee of Rs.19,750\/- was paid by <\/p>\n
    them. On October 10, 2002, the draft Annexure II was forwarded by <\/p>\n
    the   Deputy   Collector,   SRA,     to   the   Additional   Collector <\/p>\n
    (Encroachment), who is designated as a sole competent authority for <\/p>\n
    deciding   eligibility   for   verification   and   certification   of   Annexure   II.\n<\/p>\n
    The affidavit-cum declaration was given by individual slum dwellers <\/p>\n
    with their spouse on November 26, 2002 declaring that they will give <\/p>\n
    cooperation   to   the   Architect   and   M\/s.Sigtia.     Individual   tripartite <\/p>\n
    agreement   was   entered   into   between   the   Society,   M\/s.Sigtia   and <\/p>\n
    individual slum dwellers  with  their spouse  on November 26, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
    Clause   (xv)   of   the   said   agreement   recorded   that   for   executing   the <\/p>\n
    work,  an irrevocable power of attorney was given to M\/s.Sigtia. The <\/p>\n
    Additional   Collector   (Encroachment),   2nd  Respondent   herein   after <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                            9<\/span><\/p>\n
    visiting   the   site   and   verifying   the   documents,   certified   Annexure   II <\/p>\n
    wherein it is noted that out of 565 protected\/ eligible structures, 438 <\/p>\n
    slum dwellers had given consent to M\/s.Sigtia for the scheme which <\/p>\n
    was more than 77% as against required 70% as per clause 2 of the <\/p>\n
    Guidelines.     On   February   24,   2004   the   Finance   Controller   of   SRA <\/p>\n
    approved   M\/s.Sigtia’s   Annexure   III   and   certified   that   they   are <\/p>\n
    financially  sound  for  implementing    the   Scheme.    On  February  26, <\/p>\n
    2004 the society gave an undertaking on solemn affirmation that it is <\/p>\n
    satisfied with the performance  of M\/s.Sigtia and they would continue <\/p>\n
    with them and the Architect till the project is completed. The Society <\/p>\n
    executed   irrevocable     power   of   attorney   in   favour   of   M\/s.Sigtia <\/p>\n
    confirming earlier irrevocable power of attorney dated April 23, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
    It recorded that due to sustained efforts of the Directors of M\/s.Sigtia, <\/p>\n
    a lot of progress was achieved and the Society was awaiting issuance <\/p>\n
    of LOI. While the SRA was in process of issuing the LOI to M\/s.Sigtia, <\/p>\n
    Mr.Jagtap   &   Others   instituted   Writ   Petition   No.988   of   2004   in   this <\/p>\n
    Court on March 29, 2004, questioning among others (i) the election <\/p>\n
    of the office bearers of the Society, (ii) Annexure II issued in favour of <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
      the Society, (iii) 70% consent of Slum dwellers in favour of M\/s.Sigtia <\/p>\n
      and (iv) Technical and financial competence of M\/s.Sigtia.\n<\/p>\n
    4. The   SRA   issued   supplementary   Annexure   II   on   April   16,   2004 <\/p>\n
      excluding portion of land covered by the Playground Reservation and <\/p>\n
      hutments situate thereon from the earlier Annexure II, in view of the <\/p>\n
      orders   passed   by   this     Court   in   the   proceedings   restraining   the <\/p>\n
      utilisation   of   green     spaces   for   SRA   projects.     As   per   this <\/p>\n
      supplementary Annexure II, there are total 943 structures on the said <\/p>\n
      plot   of   which   442   are   censussed\/protected.       These   are   eligible <\/p>\n
      structures     for   allotment   under   the   Scheme.     It   is   the   case   of <\/p>\n
      M\/s.Sigtia   that   a   scrutiny   report   was   prepared   by   the     Executive <\/p>\n
      Engineer, SRA on May 7, 2004 enclosing therewith draft LOI and was <\/p>\n
      submitted to CEO, SRA for his approval. Copy of this was marked to <\/p>\n
      Chief Officer, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority <\/p>\n
      (MHADA), among other officers. In Writ petition No.988 of 2004 by <\/p>\n
      order dated July 1, 2004 this Court directed the SRA to submit the <\/p>\n
      report regarding  financial  and  technical  capability of M\/s.Sigtia for <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                            11<\/span><\/p>\n
       implementing the Scheme.   On July 28, 2004 the CEO of SRA, after <\/p>\n
       hearing all the parties in the said petition, submitted a report to this <\/p>\n
       Court. In the said report it was concluded that M\/s.Sigtia has financial <\/p>\n
       and   technical   expertise   and   has   complied   with   both   conditions   of <\/p>\n
       Annexure III. Report also recorded submissions made by the Advocate <\/p>\n
       on behalf of the Society before the SRA that the Society was satisfied <\/p>\n
       with the progress of the project undertaken by M\/s.Sigtia. On August <\/p>\n
       21, 2004, the Executive Enginer III of SRA resubmitted the draft LOI <\/p>\n
       to the CEO of the SRA for his approval  after the Chief Minister’s stay <\/p>\n
       order   was   vacated.     On   September   15,   2004   the   CEO   made <\/p>\n
       endorsement to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
                   “The High Court had asked CEO SRA for certain opinion.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   We are aware that the Scheme is subjudice.  It will be better
\n                   if we await the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    5. By   judgment   and   order   dated   March   11,   2005   this   Court   finally <\/p>\n
       disposed   of   Writ   Petition   No.988   of   2004.   This   Court   recorded <\/p>\n
       submissions  made  on behalf of the  petitioners therein to  the  effect <\/p>\n
       that   the   Committee   Members   of   the   Society   in   collusion     with <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                           12<\/span><\/p>\n
    M\/s.Sigtia   defrauded   the   residents   of   the   Society;   that     the   office <\/p>\n
    bearers  of the Society were not elected by the General Body; that no <\/p>\n
    General Body meetings were held by the Society, nor the  election of <\/p>\n
    the   Managing   Committee   was   held.     The   Court   also   noted   the <\/p>\n
    submissions  made on behalf of the petitioners therein that 70% of the <\/p>\n
    eligible slum dwellers have not supported the Scheme.  On the other <\/p>\n
    hand, on behalf of the Society it was submitted that it had taken all <\/p>\n
    the   necessary   precaution   and   after   considerable   efforts   ultimately <\/p>\n
    approached the SRA and are now waiting anxiously for allotment of <\/p>\n
    tenements. This Court recorded that the SRA was satisfied that the <\/p>\n
    requisite   70%   occupiers   of   the   slum   area   have   come   forward   and <\/p>\n
    reposed confidence in M\/s.Sigtia. Even the apprehension raised by the <\/p>\n
    petitioners therein about the capacity and capability of M\/s.Sigtia was <\/p>\n
    taken care of by calling upon the CEO of SRA to once again verify <\/p>\n
    and submit report. The Court also directed M\/s.Sigtia to deposit an <\/p>\n
    amount of Rs.2.50 crores as Interest Free Security Deposit so as to <\/p>\n
    ensure   the   implementation   of   the   Scheme.     Thus   all   the   requisite <\/p>\n
    measures for protecting the interest of the eligible slum dwellers were <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                           13<\/span><\/p>\n
      taken and ultimately this Court dismissed the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
    6. As noted earlier, on September 15, 2004 the CEO of SRA made an <\/p>\n
      endorsement that since the matter is subjudice  before this Court they <\/p>\n
      would await the judgment. Even after the disposal of the writ petition <\/p>\n
      No.988 of 2004 on March 11, 2005, the SRA   did not issue the LOI <\/p>\n
      though   all   the   requisite   formalities   were   completed.   Out   of   nine <\/p>\n
      petitioners in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004, Nazir Khan filed Special <\/p>\n
      Leave Petition, being SLP(C) No.11318 of 2005 before the Apex Court <\/p>\n
      on May 13, 2005 against the decision of this Court dated March 11, <\/p>\n
      2005  in Writ Petition  No.988  of  2004.  On July  18,   2005 the  Apex <\/p>\n
      Court issued notice and granted stay to this Court’s order dated March <\/p>\n
      11, 2005.  The said SLP was withdrawn on September 26, 2005.  Four <\/p>\n
      other petitioners out of the petitioners in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004 <\/p>\n
      filed SLP No.19848 of 2005 and obtained interim stay on September <\/p>\n
      19, 2005 from the Apex Court. In view of this stay order, M\/s.Sigtia <\/p>\n
      could not take any further steps towards the implementation of the <\/p>\n
      Scheme.   It appears that in that SLP the Society filed an application <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             14<\/span><\/p>\n
       being I.A.No.5 praying for issuance of direction to the SRA to consider <\/p>\n
       and sanction the Scheme prepared by the Society alongwith M\/s.Keya <\/p>\n
       Developers. It further appears that the said I.A.was dismissed.   The <\/p>\n
       SRA had filed affidavit in SLP No.19848 of 2005 on January 4, 2006 <\/p>\n
       interalia contending that it had not taken cognizance of letter dated <\/p>\n
       June 6, 2005 of the Society alleging that the development agreement <\/p>\n
       in favour of M\/s.Sigtia was terminated.   Eventually, SLP No.19848 of <\/p>\n
       2005 was dismissed as withdrawn on April 13, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
    7. During   pendency   of   SLP   19848   of   2005,   on   behalf   of   the   Society <\/p>\n
       notices dated April 26, 2005 and June 6, 2005 purporting to revoke <\/p>\n
       the development agreement and the power of attorney executed in <\/p>\n
       favour of M\/s.Sigtia were given.    This was replied by M\/s.Sigtia on <\/p>\n
       June 15, 2005 questioning the authority of the persons purporting to <\/p>\n
       terminate and revoke the said development agreement and power of <\/p>\n
       attorney. Since the SRA was not taking further steps of issuance of the <\/p>\n
       LOI   M\/s.Sigtia made a representation to the State Government on <\/p>\n
       June   10,   2005.     Before   the   Principal   Secretary   of   the     Housing <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                            15<\/span><\/p>\n
      Department, Government of Maharashtra, the Chief Executive Officer <\/p>\n
      of the  SRA, representatives of the Society and the representatives of <\/p>\n
      M\/s.Sigtia among others were present. After carefully considering the <\/p>\n
      documents presented before him and after hearing all the parties,  the <\/p>\n
      Principal Secretary   passed an order on June 20, 2005 directing the <\/p>\n
      SRA to issue LOI with further directions to the CEO   of SRA as also <\/p>\n
      M\/s.Sigtia   to   ensure   compliance   of   the   order   of   this   Court   dated <\/p>\n
      March 11, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004.  This order is <\/p>\n
      not questioned by anybody till date.\n<\/p>\n
    8. As noted earlier, the second SLP was dismissed as withdrawn on April <\/p>\n
      13,   2006.   After   dismissal   of   the   SLP   and   vacation   of   the   stay, <\/p>\n
      M\/s.Sigtia wrote to the SRA on April 25, 2006 offering to deposit Rs.\n<\/p>\n
      2.5 crores as Interest Free Security Deposit as directed by this Court <\/p>\n
      on March 11, 2005.  M\/s.Sigtia requested the SRA to issue LOI. It is at <\/p>\n
      this stage the Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 was filed in this Court by <\/p>\n
      Jagtap and nine others against the CEO of SRA being the Respondent <\/p>\n
      No.1,   and   the   Society   being   the   Respondent   No.2,   M\/s.Keya <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             16<\/span><\/p>\n
      Developers   being   the   Respondent   No.3   and   the   MCGM   being   the <\/p>\n
      Respondent NO.4.  M\/s.Sigtia were not made party in this proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
      One of the prayers in that petition was to the following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “(a)   to   issue   writ   of   certiorari     or   any   other   writ,
\n                 order\/direction   in   the   nature   of   certiorari   against   the
\n                 Respondent No.1   (CEO of SRA)   to consider the proposal
\n                 submitted by Respondent No.3 (M\/s.Keya Developers) and <\/p>\n
                 to issue letter of intent (LOI) for redevelopment of the said
\n                 property in favour of Respondent No.3.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    9. It is relevant to note here that before the Apex Court the SRA had <\/p>\n
      made   an   affidavit   on   January   4,   2006   in   SLP   No.19848   of   2005 <\/p>\n
      solemnly affirming that it had not   taken cognizance of letter dated <\/p>\n
      June   6,   2005   issued   by   the   Society   purporting   to   terminate   the <\/p>\n
      development agreement in favour of M\/s.Sigtia.   The SRA however <\/p>\n
      did   not   point   out   before   this   Court   that   M\/s.Sigtia   were   necessary <\/p>\n
      party.  It further appears that the SRA also did not file any affidavit in <\/p>\n
      that petition.   On May 4, 2006 this Court (F.I.Rebello and Anoop V.\n<\/p>\n
      Mohta, JJ.) disposed of the said writ petition by passing  order to the <\/p>\n
      following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                              17<\/span><\/p>\n
               “In the ordinary     course we would not have entertained this
\n               petition   when   there   is   a   society   who   is   responsible   for   the <\/p>\n
               development.     However,   on   behalf   of   Respondent   No.2   the
\n               learned   counsel   makes   a   statement   that   they   had   already <\/p>\n
               communicated to Respondent No.1 to appoint Respondent No.3
\n               as developer. The Respondent No.1 to call the parties in terms
\n               of   the   judgment   of   this   court   and   after   hearing   the   parties <\/p>\n
               dispose of the application of Respondent No.2 according to law,
\n               within a period of six weeks from today.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    10.We   must   record   the   consensus   among   all   the   learned   counsel <\/p>\n
       appearing   for   the   parties   that   the   judgment   referred   in   the   above <\/p>\n
       order, is the judgment dated March 11, 2005 passed by this Court in <\/p>\n
       Writ   Petition   No.988   of   2004.     Even   otherwise,   this   fact   becomes <\/p>\n
       abundantly clear from the perusal of the order of the Hon’ble Apex <\/p>\n
       Court dated November 7, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
    11.Jagtap   &   others   preferred   SLP   No.10281   of   2006   before   the   Apex <\/p>\n
       Court against the order dated May 4, 2006 passed by this Court in <\/p>\n
       Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006.  Even before the Apex Court M\/s.Sigtia <\/p>\n
       were not made party and once again it appears that the SRA did not <\/p>\n
       point out  before the Apex Court that M\/s.Sigtia  were necessary party <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                              18<\/span><\/p>\n
      particularly when the order dated May 4, 2006 passed by this Court in <\/p>\n
      Writ   Petition   No.1277   of   2006   required   SRA   to   call   the   parties   in <\/p>\n
      terms of the judgment of this Court and after hearing the parties to <\/p>\n
      dispose of the application of M\/s.Keya Developers. Even the SRA did <\/p>\n
      not   point   out   to   the   Apex   Court   that   there   was   no   proposal   of <\/p>\n
      M\/s.Keya Developers complete in all respects pending with the SRA.\n<\/p>\n
      On June 27, 2006 the Apex Court directed the SRA to issue LOI in <\/p>\n
      favour of M\/s.Keya Developers. In the order the Apex Court recorded <\/p>\n
      grievance of the petitioner before it that despite no legal impediment, <\/p>\n
      SRA was not issuing the LOI in favour of M\/s.Keya Developers despite <\/p>\n
      the  request made by the  Society. According to the petitioners, before <\/p>\n
      the   Apex   Court,   it   was   merely   giving     replacement   of   previous <\/p>\n
      developers M\/s.Sigtia who had not even started the project even after <\/p>\n
      almost eight years and whose agreement with the Society had come to <\/p>\n
      an end by efflux of time.\n<\/p>\n
    12.When M\/s.Sigtia acquired knowledge of the Apex Court order dated <\/p>\n
      June 27, 2006 it made an application on June 30, 2006 for recalling <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                           19<\/span><\/p>\n
    of  the said order and also an application for impleadment in the SLP <\/p>\n
    No.10281 of 2006.  In this application the SRA made an affidavit on <\/p>\n
    July 7, 2006 reiterating that it had not taken cognizance of the letters <\/p>\n
    dated   April   27,   2005   and   June   6,   2005   purporting   to   terminate <\/p>\n
    M\/s.Sigtia’s appointment as developers. By judgment and order dated <\/p>\n
    November 7, 2006 the Apex Court recalled its earlier order dated June <\/p>\n
    27, 2006.   It was held that M\/s.Sigtia was necessary party to Writ <\/p>\n
    Petition No.1277 of 2006 as well as SLP No.10281 of 2006. The Apex <\/p>\n
    Court   recorded   that   the   order   dated   June   20,   2005   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
    Principal Secretary, Home Department, was not challenged by anyone <\/p>\n
    before any  forum.  The  order dated  March  11,  2005 passed  by this <\/p>\n
    Court in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004 had attained finality and that as <\/p>\n
    on   April   13,   2006   there   was   no   proposal     of   M\/s.Keya   Developers <\/p>\n
    before the SRA.  The Apex Court further recorded the submission that <\/p>\n
    the development agreement in favour of M\/s.Sigtia came to an end on <\/p>\n
    April 25, 2005 by efflux of time. In this context, it was observed that <\/p>\n
    clause 2.2 of the development agreement must be read as a whole and <\/p>\n
    when so read, it would be clear that the developer (M\/s.Sigtia) was to <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             20<\/span><\/p>\n
    start   the   actual   construction   after   issuance   of   the   commencement <\/p>\n
    certificate by the authority. Therefore, the period of three years must <\/p>\n
    be   construed   to   begin   from   the   date   when   the   commencement <\/p>\n
    certificate   is   issued   and   not   from   the   date   of   the   execution   of   the <\/p>\n
    agreement. The Apex Court also noted that even the SRA to whom <\/p>\n
    letter dated June 6, 2005 was addressed, in its counter affidavit filed <\/p>\n
    before the Apex Court in the said proceeding  stated that they did not <\/p>\n
    take   notice   of   the   said   letter   of   termination   as   the   letter   was   not <\/p>\n
    supported   by   the   relevant   resolution   of   the   Society.   Eventually,   the <\/p>\n
    Apex   Court   passed   order   directing   the   SRA   to   call   two   developers <\/p>\n
    viz.M\/s.Keya and M\/s.Sigtia, as directed by the order in Writ Petition <\/p>\n
    988 of 2004 dated March 11, 2005 and the order dated May 4, 2006 <\/p>\n
    in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006, and disposed off their applications <\/p>\n
    for issuing the LOI and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with <\/p>\n
    the   Act   and   also   strictly   following   the   procedure   for   submission, <\/p>\n
    processing   and   approval   of   the   Scheme   and   to   award   LOI   to   the <\/p>\n
    developer   who   satisfies   the   required   qualifications,   conditions, <\/p>\n
    regulations and the provisions of the Act. The SRA was also directed <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                           21<\/span><\/p>\n
      to consider as to whether the guidelines and other conditions were <\/p>\n
      fulfilled by the slum dwellers\/the society\/as well as by the developers <\/p>\n
      and   issue   notice   to   the   society   also   and   hear   them   and   pass <\/p>\n
      appropriate   speaking   order   within   three   months   from   the   date   of <\/p>\n
      passing of that order.\n<\/p>\n
    13.Pursunt to these directions   the SRA heard all the concerned parties <\/p>\n
      and passed the impugned order on February 6, 2007. In the order the <\/p>\n
      SRA recorded findings to the following effect:\n<\/p>\n
      (i) By resolution dated May 29, 2005 passed by the General Body of <\/p>\n
      the   Society,   M\/s.Keya   Developers   were   proposed   as   the   new <\/p>\n
      developers for implementation of the Scheme. However, records of the <\/p>\n
      SRA indicate that M\/s.Keya Developers had submitted their proposal <\/p>\n
      with the certified Annexure II which had also been submitted earlier <\/p>\n
      by M\/s.Sigtia Developers. In the absence of certification of M\/s.Keya <\/p>\n
      Developers   Annexure   II   by   the   Competent   Authority   which   was <\/p>\n
      required   to   be   submitted   by   M\/s.Keya   Developers   to   the   SRA <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                          22<\/span><\/p>\n
    alongwith   their   proposal,   it   would   not   be   possible   to   conclusively <\/p>\n
    establish that M\/s.Keya Developers indeed enjoyed support of more <\/p>\n
    than 70% of the eligible slum dwellers of the Society.\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)The validity of the General Body Resolution dated May 29, 2005 of <\/p>\n
    the Society remains to be finally decided since the proceedings are <\/p>\n
    pending before this Court,<\/p>\n
    (iii)In   view   of   the   termination     of   development   agreement   by   the <\/p>\n
    Society on account of efflux of time, both the contending developers <\/p>\n
    vis.M\/s.Sigtia Developers and M\/s.Keya Developers had not fulfilled <\/p>\n
    necessary   and   sufficient   conditions   to   be   declared   as   competent <\/p>\n
    developer since as of date they had not enjoyed undisputed support of <\/p>\n
    more than 70% of eligible slum dwellers by way of both (a) General <\/p>\n
    Body Resolution of the   Society which is formed for identification of <\/p>\n
    the competent developer, (b) Annexure II independently certified by <\/p>\n
    the Competent Authority after observations of due procedure and on <\/p>\n
    verification   of   individual   consent   cum   agreement   signed   by   the <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                              23<\/span><\/p>\n
      eligible slum dwellers.\n<\/p>\n
    14.On these among other grounds, SRA ultimately held that in the given <\/p>\n
      circumstances identification of the competent developer can be done <\/p>\n
      diligently   only   through   verification   of   the   individual   consent   cum <\/p>\n
      agreement   signed   by   the   eligible   slum   dwellers   followed   by   fresh <\/p>\n
      certification   of   Annexure   II     by   the   Competent   Authority   so   as   to <\/p>\n
      conclusively  establish   which   developer  enjoys  the   actual  support   of <\/p>\n
      more than 70% of the eligible slum dwellers of the Society.\n<\/p>\n
    15.We have heard Mr.Aspi Chinoy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on <\/p>\n
      behalf   of   the   Petitioners   in   Writ   Petition   No.1036   of   2007   filed   by <\/p>\n
      M\/s.Sigtia.   We   have   also   heard     Mr.Vinod   Bobde,   learned   Senior <\/p>\n
      Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   M\/s.Sigtia   Developers   being   the <\/p>\n
      Respondent No.3 in  Writ Petition No.1589 of 2007 filed by M\/s.Keya <\/p>\n
      Developers, and Respondent No.4 in Writ Petition No.1075 of 2007 <\/p>\n
      filed   by   Jagtap   and   Others.         We   have   also   heard   Mr.Janak <\/p>\n
      Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of M\/s.Keya <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                              24<\/span><\/p>\n
       Developers,   Mr.Rajeev   Narulla,   learned   Counsel   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
       Society,   Mr.R.M.Kadam,   learned   Advocate   General   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
       SRA,     Mr.F.Devitre,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of <\/p>\n
       Jagtap   &   Others,   and   Mr.S.U.Kamdar,   learned   Senior   Counsel   on <\/p>\n
       behalf of Mr.Mane.\n<\/p>\n
    16.In   support   of   Writ   Petition   No.1036   of   2007   filed   by   M\/s.Sigtia <\/p>\n
       Developers,   Mr.Chinoy,   learned   Senior   Counsel   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
       SRA exceeded its jurisdiction both in law as well as under the scope of <\/p>\n
       the   authority   delineated   by   the   order   of   the   Apex   Court   dated <\/p>\n
       November 7, 2006.   The order of the SRA is totally contrary to this <\/p>\n
       Court’s   order   dated   March   11,   2005   as   also   contrary   to   the   Apex <\/p>\n
       Court’s   orders   dated   April   13,   2006   and   November   7,   2006.     He <\/p>\n
       submitted that it was not open to the SRA to find out as on date who <\/p>\n
       has   the   support   of   70%   of   the   eligible   slum   dwellers.     In   his <\/p>\n
       submission,   that   exercise   was   already   done   and   M\/s.Sigtia   had <\/p>\n
       fulfilled all the conditions and had submitted proposal complete in all <\/p>\n
       respects with Annexure I, II, III. Even after disposal of W.P.No.988 of <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                          25<\/span><\/p>\n
    2004 on March 11, 2005 the SRA ought to have issued LOI  when the <\/p>\n
    draft LOI was already prepared and the CEO was awaiting judgment <\/p>\n
    of this Court in W.P.No.988 of 2004. It was submitted it was not open <\/p>\n
    to the SRA now to start de-novo from the stage of Annexure II which <\/p>\n
    was duly certified as far back as on January 23, 2003.   Annexure III <\/p>\n
    was duly approved  by  the  Finance  Controller of the  SRA  certifying <\/p>\n
    that   M\/s.Sigtia   is   financially   sound   for   implementing   the   Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
    That apart, pursuant to this Court’s order in W.P.No.988 of 2004 the <\/p>\n
    CEO of  the SRA submitted report on January 28,  2004 once again <\/p>\n
    concluding     the   financial   and   technical   expertise   of   M\/s.Sigtia   and <\/p>\n
    that M\/s.Sigtia Developers had complied with both the conditions of <\/p>\n
    Annexure III. The filing of second Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 was <\/p>\n
    with a malafide intention  and really speaking the petitioners therein <\/p>\n
    misled this Court and also the Apex Court. He submitted that now <\/p>\n
    even   the   Apex     Court   recorded   that   M\/s.Sigtia   Developers   were <\/p>\n
    necessary  party in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 as also  necessary <\/p>\n
    party   to   the   SLP   No.10281   of   2006.   He   further   submitted   that <\/p>\n
    M\/s.Keya Developers did not submit requisite proposal complete in all <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                            26<\/span><\/p>\n
    respects before the SRA so that their claim could be considered by the <\/p>\n
    SRA.   Even   in   the   order   dated   November   7,   2006   the   Apex   Court <\/p>\n
    recorded   that   as   on   April   13,   2006   M\/s.Keya   Developers   did   not <\/p>\n
    submit proposal to the SRA. He emphasised that when the SRA was <\/p>\n
    about   to   issue   LOI   in   favour   of   M\/s.Sigtia   Writ   Petition   No.988   of <\/p>\n
    2004 was filed in this Court. That was dismissed on March 11, 2005 <\/p>\n
    and   eventually   after   dismissal   of   SLP,   the   said   judgment   attained <\/p>\n
    finality.   When   M\/s.Sigtia   were   about   to   proceed   further     with   the <\/p>\n
    implementation of the Scheme, another Writ Petition was filed being <\/p>\n
    Writ   Petition   No.1277   of   2006   behind   the   back   of   M\/s.Sigtia <\/p>\n
    Developers. In those proceedings, the SRA did not point out to this <\/p>\n
    Court or to the Apex Court that M\/s.Sigtia Developers were necessary <\/p>\n
    party. This is more so when the SRA did not take cognizance of the <\/p>\n
    letters   purporting   to   terminate   the   development   agreement   of <\/p>\n
    M\/s.Sigtia   Developers.       In   his   submission,   all   this   litigation   could <\/p>\n
    have been avoided  had the SRA pointed out before this Court in Writ <\/p>\n
    Petition   No.1277   of   2006   that   M\/s.Sigtia   were   necessary   party.\n<\/p>\n
    Mr.Chinoy   was   at   pains   to   point   out   that   SRA   and   M\/s.Keya <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                              27<\/span><\/p>\n
      Developers   are   equally   responsible   for   creation   of   litigation.         He <\/p>\n
      further submitted that considering the judgment of this Court dated <\/p>\n
      March   11,   2005  in  Writ  Petition No.988  of 2004  as also  the  order <\/p>\n
      dated May 4, 2006 in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 and the judgment <\/p>\n
      of the Apex Court dated November 7, 2006 in the I.A.in SLP No.10281 <\/p>\n
      of   2006   the   SRA   has   to   consider   the   proposal   of   M\/s.Sigtia <\/p>\n
      Developers, after considering the objections of M\/s.Keya Developers, <\/p>\n
      the   Society,   Mr.Jagtap   &   Others,   and   Mr.Mane.     He   submitted   that <\/p>\n
      since there is no proposal of M\/s.Keya Developers in the eyes of law, <\/p>\n
      there is no question of SRA considering their proposal.\n<\/p>\n
    17.Mr.Bobde, learned Senior Counsel while supporting the submissions <\/p>\n
      advanced by Mr.Chinoy, invited our attention to the guidelines framed <\/p>\n
      by SRA.  He submitted that M\/s.Sigtia Developers carried out servey, <\/p>\n
      collected   information   of   eligible   slum   dwellers   and   obtained <\/p>\n
      certification from the Additional Collector (Enc.) about the eligibility <\/p>\n
      of   the   slum   dwellers.   Once   the   Society   appointed   M\/s.Sigtia <\/p>\n
      Developers to implement  the Scheme who in turn appointed Architect <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                           28<\/span><\/p>\n
    in   consultation   with   the   Society,   the   role   of   the   Society   becomes <\/p>\n
    minimal.  The developer so chosen has to act as promoter in terms of <\/p>\n
    Guideline No.6. In terms of Guideline No.7 the promoter has to enter <\/p>\n
    into the agreement with every individual slum dweller while putting <\/p>\n
    up   the   slum   rehabilitation   proposal   to   the   SRA   for   approval.   The <\/p>\n
    Architect appointed by the promoter in consultation with the Society <\/p>\n
    has to prepare Plans as per the DCR 33 (10).  As per the Guideline No.<\/p>\n
    8 it is expected from the Architect to ensure community participation <\/p>\n
    in   preparation   of   the   building   plans.   After   completing   all   the <\/p>\n
    formalities, Annexure I, II and III were submitted by their Architect to <\/p>\n
    the   SRA.   The   designated   Engineer   of   the   SRA   has   to   ensure <\/p>\n
    completeness of the proposal submitted and then computerised File <\/p>\n
    Number is allotted to the Scheme which conclusively establishes that <\/p>\n
    the proposal as submitted was complete in all respects.  After scrutiny, <\/p>\n
    the computerised No.K-W\/MCGM\/0008\/20021003 was given to the <\/p>\n
    proposal submitted by M\/s.Sigtia Developers, whereas in respect of <\/p>\n
    M\/s.Keya   Developers   no   such   computerised   number   was   allotted <\/p>\n
    signifying that the proposal, if any, submitted by M\/s.Keya Developers <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                               29<\/span><\/p>\n
      was not complete in all respects and consequently was not at all the <\/p>\n
      proposal   in   the   eyes   of   law.     He   also   invited   our   attention   to   the <\/p>\n
      Circular No.SRA\/4 dated August 27, 1997 and the relevant portion <\/p>\n
      thereof reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
          “…..It   has   therefore,   become   necessary,   that   henceforth,   the
\n          Developer\/Architect   will   have   to   submit   the   proposal   to   S.R.A., <\/p>\n
          complete in all respects so that they will be in a position to receive
\n          LOI\/Layout   and   IOA   of   1st   (first)   rehabilitation   building <\/p>\n
          simultaneously.  The validity period for all three will be reduced to
\n          three months only, during which time he has to comply with the
\n          requirements required for starting of work and come forward with <\/p>\n
          the request to obtain C.C.u\/s.44  & 45 of M.R. & T.P.Act. Therefore,
\n          by direction of C.E.O. (SRA) the proposal which is incomplete for
\n          grant of approval of Layout\/IOA and approval of 1st rehabilitation <\/p>\n
          building will not be allowed to be submitted and will be accepted
\n          only after annexing all the required  documents for issue of above <\/p>\n
          approval. A copy of Annexure required for approval of LOI\/Layout
\n          and IOA is annexed herewith”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    18.On the basis of the above circular, Mr.Bobde, learned Senior Counsel <\/p>\n
      submitted   that   the   proposal   which   is   incomplete   in   the   grant   of <\/p>\n
      approval  of the layout\/intimation of approval and the approval of the <\/p>\n
      first rehabilitation building is not to be allowed to be submitted.  The <\/p>\n
      proposal of M\/s.Keya Developers which was incomplete ought not to <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             30<\/span><\/p>\n
       have been allowed to be submitted by the SRA.   He also invited our <\/p>\n
       attention   to   Appendix   IV   which   are   applicable   for <\/p>\n
       redevelopment\/construction of accommodation for hutment dwellers <\/p>\n
       through   the   developer\/co-operative   housing   societies,   and   in <\/p>\n
       particular clauses 1.6, 1.7, 2.2.  He submitted that in the instant case, <\/p>\n
       the proposal of M\/s.Sigtia stood statutorily approved on March 26, <\/p>\n
       2004 in terms of clause 2.2 thereof, which reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
              “The   approval   to   the   Project   shall   be   given   by   the   Slum <\/p>\n
              Rehabilitation   Authority   within  a  period  of  30   days  from  the
\n              date of submission of all relevant documents. In the event of a
\n              failure   by   Slum   Rehabilitation   Authority   to   do   so,   the   said <\/p>\n
              approval   shall   be   deemed   to   have   been   given,   provided   the
\n              Project is in accordance with the provisions in this Appendix”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    19.On   the   other   hand,   Mr.Janak   Dwarkadas,   learned   Senior   Counsel <\/p>\n
       submitted   that  the   Society   had   legally   terminated   the   development <\/p>\n
       agreement   executed   by   the   Society   in   favour   of   M\/s.Sigtia.   The <\/p>\n
       General   Body   of   the   Society   had   passed   a   resolution   appointing <\/p>\n
       M\/s.Keya Developers as a promoter who in turn, in consultation with <\/p>\n
       the Society appointed Architect. M\/s.Keya Developers has necessary <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                           31<\/span><\/p>\n
      support of 70% eligible slum dwellers of the Society.   He submitted <\/p>\n
      that   M\/s.Keya   Developers   has   entered   into   an   agreement   with   the <\/p>\n
      individual   slum   dwellers   and   has   also   necessary   Annexure   II   duly <\/p>\n
      certified   by   the   Competent   Authority   viz.the   Additional   Collector <\/p>\n
      (Enc).   He   submitted   that   M\/s.Keya   Developers   had   submitted   a <\/p>\n
      proposal to the SRA as would be evident from the reply from SRA on <\/p>\n
      the query raised under the Right to Information Act to the effect that <\/p>\n
      M\/s.Keya Developers had submitted proposal with SRA.  He therefore <\/p>\n
      submitted that   in terms of the orders of this Court dated March 11, <\/p>\n
      2005   and   May   4,   2006   and   the   order   of   the   Apex   Court   dated <\/p>\n
      November 7, 2006 the SRA is required to consider the  proposal  of <\/p>\n
      M\/s.Keya   Developers   as   also   the   proposal   of   M\/s.Sigtia.   He   also <\/p>\n
      submits that the impugned order dated February 6, 2007 passed by <\/p>\n
      the SRA deserves to be quashed and set   aside with the direction to <\/p>\n
      the SRA to consider the proposals in terms of those orders.\n<\/p>\n
    20.Mr.Rajeev Narulla, learned Counsel for the Society has supported the <\/p>\n
      submissions   advanced by Mr.Janak Dwarkadas and contended that <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                            32<\/span><\/p>\n
       the   Society   has   passed   valid   resolution   appointing   M\/s.Keya <\/p>\n
       Developers as promoter after terminating the development agreement <\/p>\n
       executed in favour of M\/s.Sigtia.  Mr.F.Devitre, learned Senior Counsel <\/p>\n
       appearing   of   Mr.Jagtap   &   Others     and   Mr.Kamdar,   learned   Senior <\/p>\n
       Counsel appearing for Mr.Mane submitted that the impugned order <\/p>\n
       dated February 6, 2007 passed by the SRA deserves to be quashed and <\/p>\n
       set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    21. During   the   course   of   hearing,   learned   Advocate   General   conceded <\/p>\n
       before us that the proposal of M\/s.Keya Developers is not complete in <\/p>\n
       all respects. In view of the contention raised by M\/s.Keya Developers <\/p>\n
       that they have submitted proposal to the SRA and  the contention of <\/p>\n
       M\/s.Sigtia   that   no   such   proposal   is   submitted   by   M\/s.Keya <\/p>\n
       Developers, we directed the learned Counsel for the SRA to produce <\/p>\n
       the original record for our perusal.   We have ourselves perused   the <\/p>\n
       original record and find that under covering letter dated July 16, 2005 <\/p>\n
       addressed   by   Mr.Anil   Chavda,   Architect   appointed   by   M\/s.Keya <\/p>\n
       Developers,   a   proposal     for   redevelopment   of   the   said   plot   was <\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                          33<\/span><\/p>\n
    submitted, and we find that alongwith that proposal no agreements <\/p>\n
    entered into between M\/s.Keya Developers and the individual slum <\/p>\n
    dwellers   are   enclosed.   Even   in   the   impugned   order   the   SRA   has <\/p>\n
    observed that M\/s.Keya Developers has submitted their proposal with <\/p>\n
    certified Annexure II which was also submitted by M\/s.Sigtia. In other <\/p>\n
    words the self same Annexure II of M\/s.Sigtia Developers is utilised by <\/p>\n
    M\/s.Keya Developers. Considering the Circular dated August 27, 1997 <\/p>\n
    extracted   hereinabove,   the   SRA   ought   not   to   have   accepted   the <\/p>\n
    incomplete proposal of M\/s.Keya Developers. Even the Apex Court in <\/p>\n
    the order dated November 7, 2006 recorded that as on April 13, 2006 <\/p>\n
    M\/s.Keya Developers had not submitted a proposal. After satisfying <\/p>\n
    ourselves,   we   find   that   as   on   date   the   proposal   of   M\/s.Keya <\/p>\n
    Developers is not complete in all respects and cannot be treated as a <\/p>\n
    proposal in the eyes of law. We emphasis this fact as in our considered <\/p>\n
    opinion the parties to Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 misled this Court <\/p>\n
    in  obtaining  the   order   on  May  4,   2006.   In  fact  the   SRA   being   the <\/p>\n
    statutory authority ought to have pointed out to this Court that the <\/p>\n
    prayer made in that petition could not have been entertained in the <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                           34<\/span><\/p>\n
       absence of proposal of M\/s.Keya Developers.   We are further of the <\/p>\n
       considered opinion that even the Apex Court was misled by the parties <\/p>\n
       before it when it passed the order on June 27, 2006 in SLP No.10281 <\/p>\n
       of 2006 directing  issuance  of LOI to M\/s.Keya Developers. The entire <\/p>\n
       litigation   from the stage of Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 onwards <\/p>\n
       could have been avoided had the SRA brought these facts before the <\/p>\n
       Court.     We are totally disappointed with the manner in which the <\/p>\n
       SRA has conducted itself before this Court in Writ Petition No.1277 of <\/p>\n
       2006  and  also   before  the  Apex  Court in  SLP  10281  of 2006.     The <\/p>\n
       litigation  from Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 onwards is a creation of <\/p>\n
       SRA.\n<\/p>\n
    22.The   procedure   for   Submission,   Processing   and   Approval   of     Slum <\/p>\n
       Rehabilitation Schemes has been laid down by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
       Clause (1) of this Scheme reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
          “All slums and pavements whose inhabitants’ names and structures
\n          appear in the electoral roll prepared with reference to 1st January,
\n          1995 or a date  prior thereto and who are actual occupants of the
\n          hutments are eligible for the slum rehabilitation schemes.”\n<\/p>\n
       Perusal of the above clause shows that the slum dwellers whose names <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                              35<\/span><\/p>\n
      appear in the electoral rolls prepared with reference to the date as on <\/p>\n
      January 1, 1995 or a date prior thereto, and who are actual occupants <\/p>\n
      of the hutments  are eligible for the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.\n<\/p>\n
    23.Clause (2) reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
         “70%   or   more   of   the   eligible   hutment-dwellers   in   a   slum   or
\n         pavement   in   a   viable   stretch     at   one   place   have   to   show   their <\/p>\n
         willingness to join slum rehabilitation scheme and come together to
\n         form   a   co-operative   housing   society     of   all   eligible   hutment-
\n         dwellers   through   a   resolution   to   that   effect.   The   following <\/p>\n
         resolution should be adopted:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (a) Resolution electing a chief promoter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         (b)Resolution     giving   the   chief   promoter   authority   to   apply   for <\/p>\n
         reservation of name for co-operative housing society<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         (c)To collect share capital (Rs.50\/- per member for slum societies) <\/p>\n
         and Rs.1\/- as entrance fee and to open account in Mumbai District
\n         Central   Co-operative\/Maharashtra   State   Co-operative   Bank   Ltd.
\n         (any branch).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Perusal   of   clause   (2)   shows   that   atleast   70%   of   such   eligible   slum <\/p>\n
      dwellers have to express their willingness to join Slum Rehabilitation <\/p>\n
      Scheme and have to come together to form a co-operative housing <\/p>\n
      society and all the slum dwellers have to pass a resolution  and elect a <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                          36<\/span><\/p>\n
    Chief   Promoter.     Before   amendment   of   the   guidelines   by   Circular <\/p>\n
    dated August 27, 1997 a duty  was cast on the Chief Promoter, officer <\/p>\n
    bearers and the members of the proposed society to collect documents <\/p>\n
    in relation to the title of the land on which  the slum is situate, as also <\/p>\n
    the information about the structure and the slum dwellers   and this <\/p>\n
    information has to be filled-in the form,   Annexure II.   Annexure II <\/p>\n
    gives details of the land occupied by the slum dwellers, number   of <\/p>\n
    and the type of structures such as residential, industrial, commercial <\/p>\n
    etc. and the list of eligible and illegible occupants and the consent of <\/p>\n
    slum dwellers to join the Scheme. By Circular dated August 27, 1997 <\/p>\n
    this procedure has been changed and now even the Architect or the <\/p>\n
    Developer can submit Annexure II to the Competent Authority.   The <\/p>\n
    relevant   portion   of   the   Circular   dated   August   27,   1997   reads   as <\/p>\n
    under:-\n<\/p>\n
       “In   order   to   facilitate   the   disposal   it   has   also   been   decided
\n       Architect\/Developer or Society hereby may submit Annexure II in <\/p>\n
       duplicate, as prepared by them in the prescribed proforma signed
\n       by   Owner\/Developer\/C.P\/N.G.O.,   a   copy   of   which   will   be
\n       forwarded to the Competent Authority who issues Annexure II for
\n       getting it certified.  The proposal will be scrutinized on the basis of
\n       Annexure-II submitted by the Architect.  However, approval will be
\n       granted   only   after   receipt   of   certified   Annexure-II   from   the <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             37<\/span><\/p>\n
         Competent Authority.”\n<\/p>\n
    24.As a result of this amendment of  August 27, 1997 clause (4) of the <\/p>\n
      Scheme has also been modified and the relevant portion of that reads <\/p>\n
      as under:\n<\/p>\n
         “As a  simplification measure,  this  procedure  is now  discontinued
\n         and   Annexure-II   format   is   now   required   to   be   filled   up   by   the
\n         promoter\/co-operative housing society itself for submitting building <\/p>\n
         proposal   to   SRA,   so   that   the   scrutiny   of   the   proposal   and
\n         certification   of   Annexure-II   can   start   simultaneously.   Annexure-II <\/p>\n
         needs   to   be   submitted   in   duplicate.   As   a   measure   of   further
\n         simplification,   Additional   Collector   (Encroachment)   is   being
\n         designated as the sole Competent Authority for deciding eligibility <\/p>\n
         and   for   taking   eviction   action   against   non-participants   in   slum
\n         rehabilitation scheme.”\n<\/p>\n
      Thus,   now   Annexure   II   can   be   submitted   by   the   Promoter <\/p>\n
      i.e.Developer who has been appointed by the Society and the power to <\/p>\n
      scrutinize that information contained in Annexure II is now conferred <\/p>\n
      on   the   Additional   Collector   (Encroachment)   and   he   is   the   sole <\/p>\n
      Competent Authority to hold that enquiry.\n<\/p>\n
    25.In the present case, Annexure II was submitted by the Architect of <\/p>\n
      M\/s.Sigtia. The Additional Collector after scrutinizing the application <\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                           38<\/span><\/p>\n
    certified Annexure II submitted by the Architect of M\/s.Sigtia. Perusal <\/p>\n
    of clause (7) of the Scheme shows that the Developer\/promoter who <\/p>\n
    is   chosen   by   the   Society   has   to   enter   into   agreement   with   every <\/p>\n
    eligible slum dweller while putting up the slum rehabilitation proposal <\/p>\n
    before   the   Slum   Rehabilitation   Authority   for   approval.   Now,   on <\/p>\n
    reading of the Scheme as amended in 1997 the position that emerges <\/p>\n
    is this:-\n<\/p>\n
       (i)70% of the eligible slum dwellers come together and decide to <\/p>\n
       form a Co-operative Society. They  nominate one of them as Chief <\/p>\n
       Promoter.   The   proposed   society,   in   case   it   decides   to   get   slum <\/p>\n
       developed through a Developer, they identify the Developer;\n<\/p>\n
       (ii)The   Developer   so   nominated   enters   into   an   agreement   with <\/p>\n
       every eligible slum dwellers;\n<\/p>\n
       (iii)The Developer in consultation with the proposed Co-operative <\/p>\n
       Housing   Society   of   the   slum   dwellers,   prepares   a   plan   for <\/p>\n
       development     of   the   slum   area   as   per   Development   Control <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                         39<\/span><\/p>\n
    Regulation 33 (10) and nominates Architect;\n<\/p>\n
    (iv) This Architect or the Developer\/promoter himself collects the <\/p>\n
    information required  to be included in Annexure I (as per clause 9 <\/p>\n
    of   the   Scheme   Annexure   I   gives   details   about   the   ownership   of <\/p>\n
    land,   details   of   plot   area,   details   of   existing   hutments   and   their <\/p>\n
    type,   computation   of   tenement   density,   extent   and   type   of <\/p>\n
    reservations, amenities, FSI available,  number of tenements to be <\/p>\n
    constructed including calculation of TDR etc.), and Annexure II.\n<\/p>\n
    (v) Power to scrutinize the information contained in Annexures I <\/p>\n
    and II is vested solely in the Additional Collector (Encroachment) <\/p>\n
    who scrutinizes Annexure I and II;\n<\/p>\n
    (vi)   Power   to   scrutinize   Annexure   III   is   with   the   Slum <\/p>\n
    Rehabilitation   Authority.   So   far   as   contents   of   Annexure   III   are <\/p>\n
    concerned, it is Rule 10 of the Scheme which is relevant,  which <\/p>\n
    reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                          40<\/span><\/p>\n
            “Annexure-III  is prescribed to assess the  financial capability of
\n            the   promoter.   The   items   contained   in   Annexure-III   are   self
\n            explanatory. Keeping in view the sensitivity of this information, it <\/p>\n
            is kept strictly confidential by SRA.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (vii)  Financial capability of the Promoter\/Developer is to be  certified <\/p>\n
      by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and it is only thereafter that the <\/p>\n
      stage of issuing the Letter of Intent comes.\n<\/p>\n
    26. In so far as present case is concerned, it is common ground that so far <\/p>\n
      as M\/s.Sigtia is concerned, Annexure I, II and III submitted by them <\/p>\n
      have been duly scrutinized and certified. A challenge was raised after <\/p>\n
      scrutiny of Annexure III in this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.988 <\/p>\n
      of   2004.   That   petition   has   been   dismissed.   Therefore,   as   a <\/p>\n
      consequence  thereof the  Slum Rehabilitation Authority should have <\/p>\n
      proceeded to consider the issuance of Letter of Intent.  Because there <\/p>\n
      was delay on the part of the SRA in issuing the Letter of Intent the <\/p>\n
      Government was approached and it is an admitted position that the <\/p>\n
      Government has issued a direction after hearing the Society and the <\/p>\n
      Slum Rehabilitation Authority to issue the Letter of Intent in favour of <\/p>\n
      M\/s.Sigtia.   That   order   of   the   State   Government   has   not   been <\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             41<\/span><\/p>\n
      challenged   by   anybody   till   this   date.     Even   in   the   order   of   the <\/p>\n
      Supreme   Court   the   Supreme   Court   has   also   noted   that,   that   order <\/p>\n
      holds the field. What is pertinent to be noted is that the SRA in its <\/p>\n
      order which is impugned in the petition does not even refer to the <\/p>\n
      order of the State Government directing the SRA to issue Letter of <\/p>\n
      Intent in favour of M\/s.Sigtia. In our opinion, the order of the State <\/p>\n
      Government which holds the filed was a relevant document, specially <\/p>\n
      when   pursuant   to   the   order   of   the   Supreme   Court   the   SRA   is <\/p>\n
      considering the question whether the Letter of Intent is to be issued <\/p>\n
      in favour of M\/s.Sigtia or not.\n<\/p>\n
    27.So far as judgment of the Supreme Court  dated  November 7, 2006 is <\/p>\n
      concerned,   a   careful   reading   of   the   judgment   reveals   that   the <\/p>\n
      Supreme Court has recorded following findings:\n<\/p>\n
         (i)That the agreement between M\/s.Sigtia and the Society has not <\/p>\n
         come to end by efflux of time on April 25, 2005;\n<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                   42<\/span><\/p>\n
    (ii)That the SRA stated before the   Supreme Court that it did not <\/p>\n
    take any notice of letters of the Society terminating the agreement <\/p>\n
    with M\/s.Sigtia dated April 25, 2005 and June 6, 2005;\n<\/p>\n
    (iii)That the order dated March 11, 2005 passed by this Court in <\/p>\n
    Writ Petition No.988 of 2004 attained finality;\n<\/p>\n
    (iv)Till March 13, 2006 the SRA did not have before it any proposal <\/p>\n
    submitted by M\/s.Keya Developers;\n<\/p>\n
    (v)That M\/s.Sigtia was necessary party to the writ petition being <\/p>\n
    W.P.No.1277 of 2006 before this Court and in the SLP No.10281 of <\/p>\n
    2006 before the Apex Court;\n<\/p>\n
    (vi)That it is for the SRA to decide whether the alleged termination <\/p>\n
    of the agreement between the proposed Society and M\/s.Sigtia has <\/p>\n
    any effect  on the entitlement or otherwise of the Letter of Intent to <\/p>\n
    M\/s.Sigtia;\n<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                      43<\/span><\/p>\n
    (vii)That   at   the   hearings   held   before   the   Principal   Secretary, <\/p>\n
    Government of Maharashtra on June 15, 2005, the representatives <\/p>\n
    of the proposed Society did not say anything about the purported <\/p>\n
    termination of the agreement between M\/s.Sigtia and the proposed <\/p>\n
    Society;\n<\/p>\n
    (viii)That   the   order   of   the   Principal   Secretary,   Government   of <\/p>\n
    Maharashtra directing issuance of Letter of Intent to M\/s.Sigtia has <\/p>\n
    gone unchallenged;\n<\/p>\n
    (ix)That the Supreme Court has directed the SRA to call M\/s.Sigtia <\/p>\n
    and M\/s.Keya Developers for hearing on the question as to whom <\/p>\n
    the Letter of Intent is to be issued in terms of the order of  this <\/p>\n
    Court dated March 11, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004 <\/p>\n
    and the order dated May 4, 2006 passed in Writ Petition No.1277 <\/p>\n
    of 2006.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                             44<\/span><\/p>\n
    28.So far as the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004 is <\/p>\n
      concerned, as per that order, the scrutiny of Annexures I, II and III of <\/p>\n
      the   proposal   submitted   by   M\/s.Sigtia   was   over,   and   the   Slum <\/p>\n
      Rehabilitatin   Authority   was   to   consider   the   question   of   issuance   of <\/p>\n
      Letter of Intent in favour of M\/s.Sigtia. So far as order dated May 4, <\/p>\n
      2006 in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 is concerned, that order reads <\/p>\n
      as under:-\n<\/p>\n
         “In   the   ordinary       course   we   would   not   have   entertained   this
\n         petition   when   there   is   a   society   who   is   responsible   for   the
\n         development.   However,   on   behalf   of   Respondent   No.2   their <\/p>\n
         learned   counsel   makes   a   statement   that   they   had   already
\n         communicated to Respondent No.1 to appoint Respondent No.3 as
\n         developer by Respondent No.2. The Respondent  No.1  to  call the <\/p>\n
         parties in terms of the judgment of this court and after hearing the
\n         parties, dispose of the application of Respondent No.2 according to <\/p>\n
         law, within the period of six weeks from today.”\n<\/p>\n
    29. Perusal of the above quoted order makes it clear that by that order the <\/p>\n
      Respondent No.1 in that petition i.e.the SRA has been directed to call <\/p>\n
      the parties in terms of the judgment of this Court viz.judgment of this <\/p>\n
      Court   dated   March   11,   2005   in  Writ  Petition  No.988  of  2004,   and <\/p>\n
      after hearing the parties to dispose of the application of Respondent <\/p>\n
      No.2 in that petition in accordance with law.  The Respondent No.2 in <\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                               45<\/span><\/p>\n
      that petition was the proposed Society. Thus it becomes necessary to <\/p>\n
      find out what was the direction contained in the order of the High <\/p>\n
      Court dated  March 11, 2005 passed in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n
      In   this   regard,   in   our   opinion,   Paragraph   No.20   of   that   order   is <\/p>\n
      relevant, which reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
         “In   the   light   of   the   aforesaid   discussion,   in   our   view,   it   is   not
\n         necessary to either quash and set aside the scheme or issue further <\/p>\n
         directions   as   sought   in   the   petition.   Needless   to   state   that   the
\n         scheme is presently at primary stage. Final approvals have not been <\/p>\n
         granted on the own showing of SRA. If SRA decides not to issue
\n         LOI in favour of Respondent No.7, it will always be open for the
\n         parties to submit a fresh development scheme. For the present, we <\/p>\n
         do not find that this is a fit case for interference with the tentative
\n         decision of the SRA.”\n<\/p>\n
    30. Perusal of the above paragraph 20 shows that after the judgment of <\/p>\n
      the   High   Court,   the   SRA   was   to   consider   the   question   of   granting <\/p>\n
      approval to the Scheme pending before the SRA. The Scheme pending <\/p>\n
      at   that   time   was   the   Scheme   submitted   by   M\/s.Sigtia,   and   the <\/p>\n
      question of submission of another Scheme would have arisen if the <\/p>\n
      SRA had decided not to issue Letter of Intent in favour of M\/s.Sigtia.\n<\/p>\n
      It is thus clear that the   first issue that the SRA was to consider is <\/p>\n
      whether M\/s.Sigtia is entitled to issuance of Letter of Intent. No doubt <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                              46<\/span><\/p>\n
    as per the order of the Supreme Court M\/s.Keya Developers will also <\/p>\n
    have to be heard on that issue, but there is no question of the issue <\/p>\n
    whether   M\/s.Keya   Developers   is   entitled   to   Letter   of   Intent     being <\/p>\n
    considered   unless   and   until   the   SRA   comes   to   the   conclusion   that <\/p>\n
    M\/s.Sigtia is not entitled to get the Letter of Intent. In other words, <\/p>\n
    the   SRA   will   have   to   first   hear   the   parties   on   the   issue   whether <\/p>\n
    M\/s.Sigtia   is   entitled   to   Letter   of   Intent.   If   the   SRA   comes   to   the <\/p>\n
    conclusion that M\/s.Sigtia is entitled to Letter of Intent, then that will <\/p>\n
    be the end of the matter, and the order of this Court  and the order of <\/p>\n
    the   Supreme Court will stand complied with. However, in case the <\/p>\n
    SRA comes to the conclusion that M\/s.Sigtia is not entitled to issuance <\/p>\n
    of   Letter   of   Intent   then   it   will   have   to   take   up   the   issue   whether <\/p>\n
    M\/s.Keya   Developers   is   entitled   to   issuance   of   Letter   of   Intent   for <\/p>\n
    consideration. The application of M\/s.Sigtia will have to be heard and <\/p>\n
    considered first, and it is only thereafter depending on the result of <\/p>\n
    that application, that the application of M\/s.Keya Developers can be <\/p>\n
    considered, assuming that M\/s.Keya Developers has made any such <\/p>\n
    application   because   we   have   recorded   a   finding   above   that   no <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                              47<\/span><\/p>\n
      complete   application   submitted   by   M\/s.Keya   Developers   is   on   the <\/p>\n
      original   record.   No   doubt,   while   considering   the   question   whether <\/p>\n
      M\/s.Sigtia   is   entitled   to   issuance   of   Letter   of   Intent,   the   question <\/p>\n
      whether   the   agreement   in   favour   of   M\/s.Sigtia   has   been   validly <\/p>\n
      terminated or not will have be be considered.\n<\/p>\n
    31. We have to note here that before us it was clearly submitted that in <\/p>\n
      the Scheme which is framed by the State Government the proposed <\/p>\n
      Society does not enter into any agreement with the Developer. The <\/p>\n
      Developer has to enter into the agreement with the eligible individual <\/p>\n
      slum   dwellers,   and   as   the   agreement   between   the   Society   and   the <\/p>\n
      Developer is not contemplated there is no question of appointment of <\/p>\n
      the Developer coming to an end because of any resolution passed by <\/p>\n
      the   proposed   Housing   Society.     It   was   also   submitted   that   in   the <\/p>\n
      present case M\/s.Sigtia has in fact entered into   agreement with the <\/p>\n
      eligible  individual  slum  dwellers    and   it  is not  anybody’s  case  that <\/p>\n
      those   agreements  have   been  terminated   by  eligible   individual   slum <\/p>\n
      dwellers.     It   was   also   argued   that   as   the   eligible   individual   slum <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                              48<\/span><\/p>\n
      dwellers     have   entered   into   the   agreement   with   M\/s.Sigtia,   unless <\/p>\n
      such   slum   dwellers   terminate   the   agreement   entered   into   by   them <\/p>\n
      with M\/s.Sigtia in accordance with law, they cannot enter into similar <\/p>\n
      agreement with any other person.       It was also submitted that the <\/p>\n
      proposed Housing Society which is yet to be registered does not exist <\/p>\n
      independently of its members,   and therefore, no resolution passed by <\/p>\n
      such body has any validity, unless and until each and every person <\/p>\n
      who   have   decided   to   join   in   the   formation   of   the   Soceity   joins   in <\/p>\n
      passing the resolution.  However, we do not propose to go into these <\/p>\n
      questions because these question can be raised by the parties if they <\/p>\n
      are   so   advised  before  the  SRA,  and  while  deciding  the  question  of <\/p>\n
      entitlement of M\/s.Sigtia to the issuance of Letter of Intent the SRA <\/p>\n
      will have to decide these issues also.\n<\/p>\n
    32.In our opinion, the impugned order dated February 6, 2007 passed by <\/p>\n
      the SRA is unsustainable. The approach of the SRA to find out as on <\/p>\n
      date who has support of 70% eligible slum dwellers is unsustainable.\n<\/p>\n
      In our opinion, that stage was already over and on record there is a <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:16 :::<\/span>
\n                                           49<\/span><\/p>\n
      complete proposal of M\/s.Sigtia Developers.\n<\/p>\n
    33.In   our opinion, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set <\/p>\n
      aside.   Accordingly,   the   impugned   order   is   quashed   and   set   aside.\n<\/p>\n
      Matter is remanded to the SRA. The SRA to decide the proposal of <\/p>\n
      M\/s.Sigtia Developers  in  terms  of  the  order dated  March  11,  2005 <\/p>\n
      passed in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004 as also the order  dated May 4, <\/p>\n
      2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006, and the <\/p>\n
      order dated November 7, 2006 passed by the Apex Court in SLP No.<\/p>\n
      10281 of 2006, and on the basis of the record as it stands today, as <\/p>\n
      expeditiously  as  possible,  and   in  any  case  within  a period  of  three <\/p>\n
      months from today.   All contentions of the parties are expressly kept <\/p>\n
      open. The SRA will consider the contentions of the parties and will <\/p>\n
      record reasons and give findings. While considering the proposal of <\/p>\n
      M\/s.Sigtia   Developers,   the   SRA   will   consider   the   objections   of <\/p>\n
      M\/s.Keya Developers, as also of the Society, Mr.Jagtap & Others and <\/p>\n
      Mr.Mane.  If the SRA decides not to issue LOI in favour of M.s.Sigtia <\/p>\n
      Developers, it will be open for the parties to submit fresh development <\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:17 :::<\/span>
\n                                           50<\/span><\/p>\n
      Scheme as observed by this Court in paragraph No.20 of the judgment <\/p>\n
      and   order   dated   March   11,   2005   in  Writ  Petition  No.988   of  2004.\n<\/p>\n
      Rule is made absolute in all the Petitions. However, in the facts and <\/p>\n
      circumstances of these petitions, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
    34.At this stage request is made by the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.\n<\/p>\n
      1075\/2007 & 1589\/2007 for staying of the operation of this judgment <\/p>\n
      & order.  In our opinion, no useful purpose will be served by staying <\/p>\n
      the   hearing   of   the   matter   by   the   Slum   Rehabilitation   Authority.\n<\/p>\n
      However, as the parties want to approach the Higher Court,  it will be <\/p>\n
      appropriate to direct the Slum Rehabilitation Authority not to make its <\/p>\n
      final order for a period of six weeks from today, though it can go on <\/p>\n
      with the hearing of the matter in terms of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.)<\/p>\n
                                                          (R.G.KETKAR,J.)<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:05:17 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court M\/S.Sigtia Constructions … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 September, 2009 Bench: D.K. Deshmukh, Rajesh G. Ketkar 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179900","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S.Sigtia Constructions ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S.Sigtia Constructions ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-04T04:10:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"47 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S.Sigtia Constructions … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-04T04:10:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":9021,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Sigtia Constructions ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-04T04:10:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S.Sigtia Constructions … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S.Sigtia Constructions ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S.Sigtia Constructions ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-04T04:10:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"47 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S.Sigtia Constructions … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-04T04:10:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009"},"wordCount":9021,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009","name":"M\/S.Sigtia Constructions ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-04T04:10:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sigtia-constructions-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-on-17-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S.Sigtia Constructions … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 17 September, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179900","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=179900"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179900\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179900"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179900"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179900"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}