In what can be seen as a clear, cogent, composed and convincing message to one and all, the Gujarat High Court in a learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Dharmendra RaviPratap Rajak Vs State of Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No. 16256 of 2021 delivered on January 27, 2022 has refused to stall the redevelopment work being carried out in Public Housing Blocks, noting that public interest will always have precedence over a private interest of the parties. Very rightly, the single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Vaibhavi Nanavati who authored this judgment observed that, “Some inconvenience to individual dwellers cannot be given any primacy and public interest as well as public benefit has to be taken into consideration.” It must be mentioned here that the concept of ‘public interest’ will prevail over ‘private interest’ is based on the principle of legal maxim titled “Salus Populi est Suprema lex” which in simple terms mean “regard for Public Welfare is the highest law”. This principle is based on the implied agreement of every member of society that his own individual welfare shall in cases of necessity yield to that of community. His property, liberty and life shall under certain circumstances be placed in jeopardy or even sacrificed for public good.
To start with, in short, the Bench first and foremost puts forth in para 1 that, “By way of the present writ-application under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicants herein seek to challenge the action of undertaking the work of Redevelopment of the ‘Soneriya Block’, situated on T.P. Scheme No. 11, Final Plot No. 170 at Rakhiyal, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad, in view of the fact that the respondent no.2 not providing the detailed information and audience to the writ-applicants and not deciding the representations made by the writ-applicants. It is further the grievance of the writ-applicants that the redevelopment process in respect of the above-referred scheme is without following the due process of law, as contemplated in the Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Redevelopment Scheme’ for the sake of brevity).”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that, “The brief facts germane to adjudication of the present writ-application are stated thus:2.1. The writ-applicants are the owners and occupants of the respective units situated in the aforesaid area known as ‘Soneriya Block’. The writ-applicants are owners of the said unit as per the resolutions passed by the respondent no.2 in the year 1984 as well as 2001, wherein, the ownership rights were transferred to the respective occupants. These units were constructed on the land belonging to the respondent no.2 being TP Scheme No. 11 and Final Plot No. 170 at Rakhiyal-Asarwa at Ahmedabad. It is stated that there are about 760 dwelling units and 18 shops in the said area.
2.2. The writ-applicants came to be served with Notice under Section 268 of the BPMC Act (for short ‘the Act’) on 22.01.2021. The writ-applicants were informed about the redevelopment project undertaken by the respondent no.2 and work order issued to the respondent no.3. The writ-applicants tried to gather the information and ultimately one of the writ-applicants preferred an application under Right to Information Act on 08.04.2021 with regard to the redevelopment process, however, the said application was never answered. The main grievance of the writ-applicants is that, if the writ-applicants were made part of the entire process, then the respondent no.2 should not have withhold such information which ultimately has to be given to the beneficiaries. It is further stated that the writ-applicants made representation dated 27.08.2021 to the respondent no.2, which is not answered by the respondent no.2. It is further stated that the respondent no.2 initiated the work of demolition and already 5 blocks are already demolished till date.
2.3. It is the grievance of the writ-applicants that the final notice issued by the respondent no.2 – AMC dated 11.10.2021 is without provision of law and it is in the form of an ultimatum and the writ-applicants are asked to vacate the premises, failing which the writ-applicants will not be given the benefits of the redevelopment process. The respondent no.2 being a public agency, is bound to provide the requisite documents to the writ-applicants and non-providing of such documents, create a grave suspicion in the mind of the writ-applicants.
2.4. The summation of the grievance of the writ-applicants can be said to be the impugned action on the part of the respondents of not providing the information and documents, etc. and issued a final notice dated 14.10.2021 and in view thereof, the writ-applicants is constrained to approach this Court with the aforesaid reliefs.”
Simply put, the Bench then enunciates in para 7 that, “Before proceeding, at the outset, the subject matter with regard to the present writ-application is reduced to a narrow compass, in view of the submissions made by Mr. Nandish Thackar, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicants as stated above. The redevelopment scheme with respect to the Soneriya Block situated at T.P. Scheme No. 11, Final Plot No. 170 at Rakhiyal, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad came to be declared in accordance with the Redevelopment Scheme, 2016. This Court has perused the said policy, entire record and affidavit in reply filed by the respective respondents duly produced on record. It is pertinent to note that 93% of the occupants have given their consent for redevelopment and are occupying the alternative residential arrangement as supplied by the respondent no.3. It is only at the behest of few persons, such as the writ-applicants that redevelopment work is stalled. Even the writ-applicants have specifically conceded that they are not opposing the scheme, but they seek reassurance from the respondents that the redevelopment scheme would be in accordance with the policy as stated. In view of above, no further adjudication is required.”
As we see, the Bench then observes in para 9 that, “The respondent no.3 i.e. the private respondent who has been awarded the work of redevelopment of Soneriya Block has also assured that the redevelopment policy is strictly followed and it will be followed in its true spirit but for some of the writ-applicants, there is no complaint with regard to the work undertaken by the respondent no.3.”
Quite significantly, the Bench then postulates in para 10 that, “In view of this Court, the work undertaken by the respondent nos.2 and 3 is for the benefits of the unit holders and the scheme has been formulated to benefit the said section of the society. The object is in the interest of the public at large and the said object cannot be defeated at the behest of few persons. While the respondent no.2 has floated the scheme, the respondent no.3 is given the task to give the effect to the said scheme. The time frame in which the project could have been completed is also delayed, at the behest of few persons. It cannot be said that the aforesaid scheme is in any way discriminatory. No fundamental or legal rights of the writ-applicants can be have to have been infringed by any action on the part of the respondent authorities.”
Quite remarkably, the Bench then stipulates in para 11 that, “The government in order to achieve the below mentioned objects have provided for framing the present scheme:(I). To upgrade existing housing stock;
(II). Create additional affordable housing stock wherever possible;
(III). To utilize available land in optimal manner; and
(IV). To improve neighborhood at no or minimal cost to the Government.’
Some inconvenience to individual dwellers cannot be given any primacy and public interest as well as public benefit has to be taken into consideration.”
Most significantly, the Bench then minces no words absolutely in para 12 to hold what forms the cornerstone of this notable judgment that, “The public interest will always have precedence over a private interest of the parties, more particularly, when the said is in the public at large and in the present case, at the behest of few writ-applicants, the entire project cannot be put to a standstill. The project had already been stalled in view of the pendency of the writ-application and in view of this Court, no further delay be caused in proceeding further with the redevelopment scheme of Soneriya block. More so, the redevelopment scheme is on-going since 2017 and more than 90% occupants have already given their consent for the redevelopment process.”
Furthermore, the Bench then holds in para 13 that, “In view of this Court, no interference is called for, more particularly, since the writ-applicants have limited their prayers to ensure effective implementation of the redevelopment of Soneriya block and the respondents have on affidavits and on their own statements stated that the respondents shall undertake the redevelopment process of the scheme in accordance with the policy itself. The respondents shall adhere to the statements made in the affidavits before this Court and make sure that the beneficiaries are not put to any inconvenience during the redevelopment process and are not deprived of any benefits and amenities, as assured.”
Finally, the Bench then holds in para 14 that, “With the aforesaid directions to the respondents, the present writ-application stands disposed of.”
In sum, the Gujarat High Court in this noteworthy case leaves not even an iota of doubt that public interest has precedence over private interest. Of course, there can be no quibbling about it. The Court thus very rightly refused to stall redevelopment of public housing blocks. It has accorded bona fide reasons also for doing so. No denying it! Sanjeev Sirohi