WRIT PETITION NO. 2987 OF 2018

3rd June 2019

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar Mr. Karan Bhosale Mr. Vipul Singh M/s. NDB
Respondent Counsel: Mr. Samdhani Mr. Shrihari Aney Mr. Yogesh Sankpal Mr. Makrand Kale Mr. Vijay Patil Mr. Mukesh Vashi Mr. Girish Godbole Mark D'Mello Mr. Shaun Pinto Mr. Girish Utangale Mr. Chetan Mhatre Mr. Sujay Prabhu M/s. Utangale & Co.
Act Name: Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971 Development Control Regulations of Greater Bombay, 1991 Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976 Constitution of India, 1950

Section :
Section 12(10) Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971 Section 13(2) Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971 Section 104 Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971 Section 113 Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971 Chapter I-A Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971 Regulation 33(10) Development Control Regulations of Greater Bombay, 1991 Chapter IX Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976

Cases Cited :
Paras 43, 59: Susme Builders Private Limited Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Others, (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 230
Paras 43, 60: K.S. Chamankar Enterprises & Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition (L.) No.3563 of 2017
Para 43: M/s. Ravi Ashish Land Developers Ltd. Vs. Prakash Pandurang Kamble & Anr., Appeal From Order No.1019 of 2010 dated 7 February 2013
Para 61: Hi Tech India Construction Vs. Chief Executive Officer & ors, 2015 (3) Bom C.R. 370

JUDGEMENT

1. This is yet another proceeding concerning a ‘Slum Rehabilitation Scheme’ on Government land, wherein the slum dwellers since the year 1997 have nurtured an unfulfilled dream to be rehabilitated in a permanent roof over their head and live in human conditions.

2. Before adverting to the case in hand, I may at the outset express concern on such issues which inhibit and hamper the Slum Redevelopment Schemes.

3. There is a wealth of decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court emphasizing on the expeditious and effective rehabilitation of slum dwellers, who live in inhuman conditions, so as to achieve in letter and spirit, the object and intention of a fairly old State legislation namely the "Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement , Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971". Nonetheless, considering the volumes of disputes still reaching the Courts, it can certainly be said that time is ripe, if not too late, to ponder, whether things are realistically working in the right direction, to eradicate slums and rehabilitate the slum dwellers, with the desired efficacy and expedition. This not only at the hands of the authorities but also at the hands of the other stake holders. The vital issue which has often led to controversy and disputes, is on the rules permitting, the selection and appointment of developers to undertake a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, being conferred on the slum dwellers, who are hardly expected to know the nitty-gritty of the slum redevelopment schemes. It is seen that the so called leaders of the slum dwellers who are themselves in need to be rehabilitated, are often lured by developers and their agents, and once a developer is appointed, what normally prevails is a constant fear of incertitude and skepticism amongst the slum dwellers, leading to disputes on variety of issues affecting their final rehabilitation. Such issues not only frustrate the very object of a speedy slum redevelopment but completely derail the slum schemes. It can be seen that scores of slum schemes have remained incomplete for years together and are languishing on such issues, either in litigation before Courts and/or before the authorities. These schemes need not face such ordeal, including of an unending litigation. To change the developer is no answer as even this process involves dispute resolution and ultimately lengthy litigation from one forum to another.
Can the Slum Rehabilitation Authority not have a robust panel of bonafide developers who have genuine business interest to redevelop slums, of course with commercial benefits as conferred under the rules, and who can be appointed by an open and fair scheme of selection and allotment of slum projects and who would be accountable to the Authority?
It is high time that, learning from the past experiences, the burden on the ill equipped slum dwellers to be responsible to appoint developers and pursue the redevelopment scheme is removed and to do away the ordeal of the slum dwellers to go on knocking the doors of different authorities for years together when the developers fail to perform. Redevelopment to be undertaken professionally and in a time bound manner is the need of the day, even to fulfill the ideals, which the Government intends to achieve. What is necessary is the initiative of a redevelopment, by genuine, honest and trustworthy developers appointed through the Slum Authority or any other Special Body created for the said purpose and not to leave it to the slum dwellers to re-develop the slums. This for the reason that the slum dwellers are supposed to be merely interested in their rehabilitation and can have no other interest. All these efforts are necessary, as a step forward to achieve an object of having an ideal city free of slums. It cannot be countenanced that the slums be redeveloped only when the slum dwellers feel the need of a redevelopment and the Government Authorities cannot initiate redevelopment and cannot initiate a suo motu action in that behalf. It is hence, for the Government and the Slum Authority to give its anxious consideration to these issues and in its wisdom to device a substantial, nay a full proof mechanism, by undertaking a study and identify these grey areas, so that the helping hand as extended by the legislature in providing this beneficial law as far back in 1971 that is almost 50 years back is held strongly and firmly by all concerned. It is never too late.

Challenge-

4. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenges an order dated 30 October 2017 passed the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, constituted under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971 (for short the ‘Slums Act”) whereby the petitioner's appeal/application against an order dated 24 April 2017, passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short, “ the SRA”) stands rejected. By the original order dated 24 April 2017, passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the SRA, an application filed by respondent No.2Ashtavinayak Co-operative Housing Society Limited (proposed) (for short, “the Society”), for change of the petitioner as a ‘developer’ for the society’s slum project, was allowed declaring that the appointment of the petitioner by the society as its developer, to undertake the society’s slum redevelopment project, stood terminated and that the society was at liberty to appoint a new developer of its choice, as per law.

5. It would be appropriate to extract the operative portion of the original order dated 24 April 2017 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, which reads thus:-
"1. The appointment of Respondent developer i.e. M/s. Galaxy Enterprises in respect of the S.R. Scheme on plot of land bearing C.T.S. No.539 C/1/A/4 of Village Chakala, Off Andheri Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 099 for Applicant Society viz. Shree Ashtavinayak SRA CHS (Prop.) hereby stands terminated.
2. The applicant Society is at liberty to appoint new developer of their own choice, as per law, rules, regulations and prevailing norms and policy of SRA, to complete the further implementation of subject S.R. Scheme.
3. The Engineering Department of SRA to appoint Government Approved Valuer for expenses legally borne by the Respondent developer on site, within a period of two months from today, and inform the same to the Applicant Society and to this Authority.
4. The newly appointed developer should reimburse the actual expenses legally incurred by the respondent developer for implementation of subject S.R. Scheme till date of this order as finally determined by Engineering department.”

Petitioner's Case:-

6. The genesis of the dispute as pleaded by the petitioner needs to be explained :-
The petitioner is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of development and construction and claims to have undertaken several projects. Respondent No.7-Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (for short, “MHADA”) is the owner of plot bearing CTS No.539-C/1/A/4 (Pt) situated at Village Chakala, TalukaAndheri, Mumbai – 400 024 (for short, “the said land”). It is the case of the petitioner that the plot is inhabited by 87 slum dwellers. Out of which 73 slum dwellers were considered eligible for permanent alternate accommodation, under the slum rehabilitation scheme.

7. The slum dwellers proposed to form a co-operative housing society and Respondent No.2 is the said ‘proposed society’ of the slum dwellers, formed so as to redevelop the slums on the land in question, under a slum rehabilitation scheme.

8. The Society initially appointed one M/s. Saral Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (for short, “M/s. Saral”) as a developer to implement a slum rehabilitation scheme on the said land. On 6 November 1997, M/s. Saral along with the society, through an architect of M/s. Saral, submitted a proposal with the SRA, for implementing a slum rehabilitation scheme in accordance with Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations of Greater Bombay (for short, “the DCR”) framed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966. To facilitate the slum redevelopment, on 16 April 1998, MHADA issued a certified Annexure-II addressed to the Architect of M/s.Saral inter-alia stating that (i) the said land is a censused colony in MHADA records, (ii) out of 87 structures, 73 structures are protected structures which are eligible for free alternative accommodation under the slum rehabilitation scheme, (iii) 73 eligible slum dwellers have consented to the proposed slum rehabilitation scheme and thus, there is appropriate consent given by slum dwellers to appoint M/s. Saral as the developer.

9. Although Annexure-II was issued on 16 April 1998, M/s. Saral failed to obtain requisite permissions/sanctions from the concerned authorities. Consequently, MHADA by its letter dated 14 July 2005, annulled the certified Annexure-II and the NOC granted, as M/s.Saral did not take any effective measures to implement the slum rehabilitation scheme and had caused an inordinate delay in implementing the slum rehabilitation scheme.

10. In the above situation the society sometime in or about August, 2006, called for a General Body Meeting and passed a resolution wherein it was recorded that more than 70% slum dwellers had given their consent to appoint the petitioner as a developer to implement a slum rehabilitation scheme on the said land. In pursuance thereto, the society and the petitioner entered into a development agreement stated to be dated 8 August 2006 as also an irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 8 August 2006, was executed by the society in favour of the petitioner. These documents appear to have been executed on 8 November 2006, as can be seen from the signature of the Notary.

11. In furtherance of the petitioner’s appointment as a developer by the society, the petitioner submitted a proposal to the MHADA for revalidation of the certified Annexure-II and NOC which was cancelled on 14 July 2005. On 9 August 2007, the Chief Executive Officer, MHADA, verified Annexure-II submitted by the petitioner and it is stated that the Chief Executive Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner's proposal was in order and was supported by more than 70% of the eligible slum dwellers.

12. On 1 October 2007, the Architect of the petitioner addressed a letter to the Assistant Land Manager, MHADA, requesting him to issue a certified copy of the Annexure-II along with the plan. Another letter to the similar effect was addressed by the Architect of the petitioner to the Assistant Land Manager, MHADA, on 17 December 2007.

13. Also on 17 December 2007, the Architect of the petitioner addressed a letter to the Chief Officer, MHADA inter-alia recording that as requested by MHADA and as per the requirement for verification, the Architect of the petitioner was annexing the list of eligible slum dwellers along with the residential proof. Petitioner has contended that as nothing was heard from the Assistant Land Manager of MHADA, the petitioner on 20 February 2008, addressed a letter to the Assistant Land Manager, MHADA, requesting him to expedite the re-verification of Annexure-II. The petitioner annexed certified true copies of the Electoral Roll No.186 and Supplementary List No.2 of 184. Thereafter for almost one year no steps were taken by the petitioner.

14. On 9 March 2009 the petitioner, through its Architect submitted a proposal along with draft Annexure-II to the slum rehabilitation authority inter-alia recording that the society had appointed the petitioner as a developer for implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme and a proposal for re-development in respect of the said land was being submitted and requested the SRA to grant an approval.

15. By a further letter dated 24 March 2009, the Architect of the petitioner again appraised the Chief Officer, MHADA of submission of the said proposal and an assurance was given by the Architect for completing the required formalities such as reservation of the name of the society etc. It was requested that a re-verified Annexure-II be issued.

16. Thereafter on 28 July 2009, the Architect of the petitioner submitted a proposal to the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, SRA, requesting to reserve the name of the Society. Along with this proposal the Architect also submitted Annexure-1, draft Annexure-II and Annexure-III to the slum rehabilitation authority. Thereafter, a scrutiny report from the Assistant Registrar, SRA was called for. The Assistant Registrar appointed his own officer to inspect the said land and subsequent thereto and after considering the documents of the slum dwellers, submitted a report dated 6 April 2010 to the SRA. The SRA also called upon the petitioner to pay scrutiny fee of Rs.1,500/- for the Letter of Intent (LOI) which was paid by the petitioner on 8 April 2010.

17. Pursuant to the petitioner submitting the draft Annexure-II along with the proposal, the Deputy Collector- SRA issued a letter dated 13 May 2010, to MHADA forwarding to the petitioner draft Annexure-II for verification of MHADA and for its approval and certification. On 15 July 2010 the Assistant Land Manager, MHADA prepared a “report for issuance of fresh Annexure-II” in the prescribed format.

18. It appears that from July, 2010 till 6th February, 2012, from the petitioner's own showing nothing concrete happened. The case of the petitioner is that there were several internal reports submitted on 3 April 2012, 3 May 2012, 6 June 2012, 27 June 2012, 4 August 2012, in which all officers of MHADA decided to process the proposal of the petitioner for issuance of Annexure-II under the provisions of the Slums Act and DCR Rule 10 (33), the policy guidelines framed by the Government of Maharashtra and the SRA.

19. The petitioner also paid a further scrutiny fee of Rs.5,000/- to MHADA on 16 March 2012. Thereafter the Executive Engineer, MHADA, after verifying the proposal of the petitioner recommended to process the Annexure-II and it is stated that the same was accepted by the Deputy Chief Engineer and Chief Engineer of MHADA on 16 October 2012, which it is stated could be seen from the report dated 16 October 2012 of MHADA. Reports dated 13 November 2012, and 7 December 2012, were prepared by the officers of MHADA. The petitioner has stated that the Officers recommended processing and issuing of Annexure-II. Thereafter officers of MHADA visited the slum area and collected necessary documents from the petitioner.

20. The petitioner contends that, however, as MHADA was not issuing a Annexure-II certificate, therefore, petitioner and the society filed an application before the High Power Committee, praying for directions for issuance of certified Annexure-II in favour of the petitioner and in the alternative for the prayer that the slum rehabilitation authority shall refer to petitioner's draft Annexure-II to the Deputy Collector (Encroachment/ Removal) and/or Additional Collector (Encroachment/Removal) for deciding eligibility and a certified Annexure-II to be issued in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter the MHADA vide letter dated 23 December 2013 prepared a certified Annexure-II and referred the same to the SRA. The Deputy Collector, SRA, thereafter forwarded the petitioner's AnnexureII to the Engineering Department of the SRA on 29 August 2015, and the same was further forwarded to the Financial Controller of the SRA.

21. The petitioner has stated that subsequent thereto, after complying with the requisite requirements, the Engineering Department of the SRA prepared its report for approval of the Letter of Intent (LOI). The petitioner has contended that before the LOI could be issued to the petitioner, a new circular had come into force, pursuant to which the Municipal Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short, “MCGM”) vide letter dated 23 December 2013 directed the Chief Executive Officer, SRA, to comply with the judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11150 of 2013 whereby the Supreme Court had directed to leave 6 meters open space. The petitioner contends that hence on 12 September 2014, the Architect of the petitioner submitted a fresh set of plans to the Chief Executive Officer, SRA and requested him to issue an LOI at the earliest.

22. The petitioner has contended that the Engineering Department of the SRA again prepared its report for approval of the slum rehabilitation scheme and the same was put up for approval before the SRA. On 18 November 2015 a reply was sent by the Deputy Collector, SRA, to a query which was raised by the Engineering Department, SRA that in the Annexure-II, MHADA had not certified the same as “Censused Slum”. It is stated that on this backdrop, the Engineering Department of the SRA again prepared its report considering the circular requiring leaving of 6 meters open space and submitted to the Chief Executive Officer- SRA, who approved the same. The petitioner has contended that accordingly from time to time steps were taken by the petitioner to pursue the scheme with the SRA and MHADA.

23. The petitioner contends that despite the aforesaid steps being taken by the petitioner, on 15 March 2016 at the behest and at the instance of another developer, the Society made an application to the SRA under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act praying for termination of the petitioner’s appointment as the developer and to permit the society to appoint another developer for implementation on the slum rehabilitation scheme on the said land.

24. The petitioner contends that although the said application of the society was filed on 15 March 2016, the SRA on 27 April 2016 issued a letter to the petitioner informing the petitioner to pay land premium to the tune of Rs.2,64,81,280/-. Accordingly, petitioner paid the first installment of Rs.39,72,192/- towards part payment of land premium on 16 May 2016.

25. It is sated that the Deputy Collector, SRA, thereafter on 5 May 2016 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be removed as a developer and why an action under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act shall not be taken on account of inordinate delay caused by the petitioner in undertaking the slum rehabilitation project.

26. The Chief Executive Officer of the SRA on hearing the society's application for change of the developer, by an order dated 19 May 2016 directed the concerned officer to conduct fresh elections of the society for appointment of the Chief Promoter and Committee members of the Society. The elections were held on 17 July 2016 in the presence of the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies -SRA. Accordingly, the Chief Promoter and the Committee members of the society were elected. The petitioner has contended that on 30 May 2016 the SRA issued a letter of intent (LOI) to the petitioner valid for a period of three months. Subsequent thereto it is stated that the petitioner also paid second installment of Rs.66,20,320/- towards part payment of land premium on 5 October 2016.

27. On 11 November 2016, the SRA issued a letter to the petitioner inter-alia recording that Letter of Intent dated 30 May 2016 issued in favour of the petitioner (which was valid for three months) was revalidated for a further period of six months i.e. upto 28 February 2017. The petitioner contends that despite issuance of the said LOI, the Chief Executive Officer, SRA, continued to hear the application of the Society for change of developer and again issued a show cause notice dated 18 November 2016 calling upon the petitioner inter-alia to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be removed as a developer and why action under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act should not be taken on account of inordinate delay caused by the petitioner. Initially a hearing was fixed on 29 November 2016, but the petitioner was unable to attend the same. On 29 November 2016 the Engineering Department issued a notice to the petitioner and the Architect of the petitioner stating that one Mr.Govind Savant has raised issues regarding implementation of slum rehabilitation scheme and called upon the petitioner to file say within a period of 15 days in that regard. It is contended that on 20 December 2016 the petitioner filed its say recording that some residents had made false complaints in the month of March 2016 before the Chief Executive Officer, SRA for change of developer and the complaint so filed by the Society, is at the behest of third parties and therefore, it ought to be dismissed. The Architect of the petitioner also informed the SRA that the developer had no intimation regarding the formation of the new committee, which was being formed and the architect had requested for issuance of IOA at the earliest.

28. Thereafter a reply dated 22 December 2016 was filed by the petitioner to the said show cause notice dated 18 November 2016 interalia stating that the petitioner was always ready and willing to implement the slum rehabilitation scheme and that there was no delay which could be attributable to the petitioner in pursing the scheme. It was contended that the application to terminate the appointment of the petitioner filed by the Society was to extort money from the petitioner. It was accordingly stated that the show cause notice dated 18 November 2016 be recalled.

29. The petitioner after submitting its reply to the show cause notice also submitted its proposal for approval of building plans of the rehab buildings and paid scrutiny fee to the SRA. Also an amount of Rs.33,100/was paid on 27 January 2017 towards IOA deposits and Rs.22,000/was towards scrutiny fee and receipts in that regard were also issued in favour of the petitioner.

30. The petitioner thereafter received a notice to appear before the Chief Executive Officer, SRA on 30 January 2017 on which date the matter was heard and closed for passing of final order.

31. On 24 April 2017, the Chief Executive Officer, SRA passed an order (supra) inter-alia terminating the appointment of the petitioner as a developer appointed by the society and granting opportunity to the society to appoint a new developer as per its choice under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act. The petitioner contends that thereafter on 1 May 2017, members of the society unanimously passed a resolution to appoint respondent No.6 M/s.Bindra Sateri Construction LLP (for short, “M/s. Bindra”) as its developer to implement the slum rehabilitation scheme on the said land.

32. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 24 April 2017 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, SRA filed an appeal (application No.88 of 2017) before the "High Power Committee" (cow the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee) inter-alia contending that the delay was not attributable to the petitioner and contended that section 13(2) of the Slums Act could not have been invoked, as the land was not declared as a “slum rehabilitation area” and prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of the Chief Executive Officer. The petitioner also prayed for interim relief however, in an order passed on 26 May 2017 the High Power Committee, opined that no prima facie case was made out by the petitioner for grant of any urgent interim reliefs. The petitioner being aggrieved by the refusal of the interim reliefs by High Power Committee approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (L) No.1434 of 2017 on 24 May 2017 praying for setting aside the said order dated 24 April 2017 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, SRA. By an order dated 12 July 2017, this Court without going into the merits of the matter directed the High Power Committee to decide the appeal preferably within a period of 10 weeks. The petitioner has contended that on 21 June 2017, M/s. Bindra with an intention to commence development on the said land, deposited on ad-hoc basis an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs with the SRA towards reimbursement.

33. The petitioner has contended that thereafter on 19 August 2017, High Power Committee after hearing the parties at length, closed the appeal of the petitioner for orders and also directed the parties to file written submissions within a period of two weeks. On 6 September 2017 the Society filed its written submissions before the high power committee inter-alia contending that the Managing Committee was appointed and on 8 December 2016 the society had accordingly addressed a letter to the SRA praying for the change of developer. The society also contended that majority of the members have decided to change the petitioner as the developer. The society also made allegations against the SRA as to how the LOI was issued during pendency of the application filed by the Society when more than 70% of the eligible slum dwellers had voted to remove the petitioner.

34. On 30 October 2017 the High Power Committee, passed the impugned order confirming the order dated 24 April 2017, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, SRA interalia holding that there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in pursuing and implementing the slum proposal.

35. The petitioner has contended that an amount of Rs.5 Crores is expended by the petitioner in the implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme. There are no details of these expenses as set out in the petition. The petitioner has also made allegations against the then Chief Executive Officer Mr. Vishwas Patil-respondent no 8, relying on a newspaper article published on 3 July 2017, in the Times of India titled as “Ex- SRA Chief's file clearance under lens”. The petitioner alleges that respondent No.8 cleared large number of files a week prior to his retirement and all these files have backdated signatures. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner is one of the affected parties as the petitioner's appointment was terminated when Mr. Vishwas Patil was the Chief Executive Officer, SRA. It is contended that Mr. Vishwas Patil had also filed a suit for defamation against the newspapers publishing the article against him and had also made an application for urgent adinterim reliefs. However, after a few hearings, sensing the mood of the Court against Mr. Vishwas Patil, the said ad-interim application was not pressed. 36. It is on the above backdrop, the petitioner is before the Court challenging the impugned order dated 30 October 2017 passed by the High Power Committee.

Society’s case

37. On behalf of the society a reply affidavit of Mr. Govind Savant, Chief Promoter is filed opposing the petition. It is the contention of the society that the members of the society being the slum dwellers as per the policy of Government of Maharashtra and under the guidance of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority these members came together for their welfare and rehabilitation and were entitled to appoint a developer to undertake redevelopment of the slums. It is contended that accordingly M/s.Saral Enterprises was appointed initially in the year 1997. The appointment of M/s.Saral was cancelled because of inordinate delay by M/s.Saral. It is contended that thereafter the petitioner was appointed as a developer by the society on 8 August 2006, but the petitioner did not take any concrete steps for rehabilitation of the members, till the filing of the application by the society dated 15 March 2016, under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act, praying for change of the developer. It is contended that this litigation has started in the year 2016 before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. It is contended that the slum dwellers are suffering due to these legal issues. It is contended that as per law and the prevailing norms and under the policy of Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the society by a resolution passed in a Special General Body Meeting held on 1 May 2017, in implementing the impugned order dated 24 April 2017, passed by the Chief Executive Officer, SRA, appointed M/s.Bindra as a new developer and near about 85% members of Society have given their individual consent for appointment of M/s.Bindra. It is contended that the society has already executed and implemented the order passed by the High Power Committee and on this very count, the petition needs to be dismissed.

38. The society has contended that during the period from 2006 to 2016 i.e. for about 10 years the petitioner did not take any concrete steps towards implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme. It is contended that even after a delay of 10 years, when the petitioner failed to obtain LOI, the respondent No.2 had no option but to file application dated 15 March 2016, under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act praying for change of the developer. It is submitted that for all these years, before the Society filed an application for change of developer, there was no impediment of any nature whatsoever that would hinder the petitioner from implementing the slum scheme. It is contended that the AnnexureII was originally issued by MHADA on 16 April 1998. The petitioner was appointed as developer in the month of June 2006 and it took 7 years for the petitioner to obtain revised Annexure-II on 23 December 2013. It is contended that the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause as to why it took 7 years just to obtain the revised Annexure-II when as per circular dated 1 October 2010, issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the Annexure-II shall be prepared and finalized within period of 4 months when the hutment dwellers are below 500 in numbers. It is contended that even after obtaining the revised Annexure II on 23 December 2013, the petitioner did not initiate any steps to obtain LOI for the next 3 years and it is only after the society initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act, the petitioner started taking steps to obtain LOI. It is contended that this conduct of the petitioner was causing serious prejudice to the slum dwellers. It is contended that after the application for change of developer of the society was allowed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the Managing Committee convened a General Body Meeting on 24 April 2017 to discuss the issues of change of the developer and unanimously a decision was taken in the said meeting which was held on 1 May 2017 appointing M/s.Bindra, who has already submitted its proposal to the SRA, for re-development of the building in question. It is contended that further the society has entered into a Development Agreement dated 8 May 2017, with M/s.Bindra as also a Power of Attorney is issued in favour of M/s.Bindra to undertake the scheme . It is accordingly contended that the petition be dismissed.

Case of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority:-

39. On behalf of Slum Rehabilitation Authority, reply affidavit of Mr.H.A. Masal, Assistant Engineer, is placed on record. It is contended that this petition is an abuse of the process of law. It is contended that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and the present writ petition is an attempt by the petitioner to create hurdles in the smooth functioning and implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme in respect of the land in question. It is contended that Slum Rehabilitation Authority is the planning authority for implementation of the slum rehabilitation projects, established under the provisions of Chapter I-A of the Slums Act and is constituted with the aims, objects and functions to implement slum rehabilitation schemes/projects in Mumbai city and it's suburbs and to provide permanent alternate accommodation to the eligible slum dwellers free of cost and to upgrade their standard of living and without any consideration as per the slum rehabilitation scheme. The legislative scheme is explained in paragraph 6 of the reply to contend that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has been empowered under Section 37(1-B) to prepare and submit proposals for modifications to the development plan of Greater Mumbai and it has been delegated with powers to declare any area as slum rehabilitation area for rehabilitation of slums. In paragraph 8, it is contended that the subject land is owned by MHADA and that the slums on the subject plot of land is declared as a “slum”. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority has contended that the Chief Executive Officer, MHADA and the competent authority had issued Annexure-II (list of eligible and non-eligible slum dwellers) residing on the subject property on 23 December 2013. It is contended that despite issuance of Annexure-II, the petitioner did not take effective steps to further the scheme and only after representation was made by the Society in March 2016 for change of the petitioner as the developer, the petitioner started taking steps to get the Letter of Indent as approved on 6 April 2016. It is contended that the petitioner was inactive and that the society was justified in making the application by its letter dated 15 March 2016, by which the Society requested Slum Rehabilitation Authority, to terminate the appointment of petitioner, on ground of inordinate delay in implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme. It is contended that accordingly, following a lawful procedure namely of issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act, and on granting an opportunity of a hearing to the petitioner and all the other concerned, the Chief Executive Officer, of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has passed an order dated 24 April 2017, (supra) removing the petitioner as a developer and permitting the Society to appoint a new developer as per its own choice and as per law, pursuant to which by majority, the society has appointed M/s.Bindra. It is contended that the findings of the Chief Officer are confirmed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee in the impugned order, whereby the petitioner’s appeal stands dismissed. It is contended that in the circumstances, both the authorities have rightly held that scheme has been inordinately delayed on the part of the petitioner. It is submitted that in the facts of the case, the petition needs to be dismissed.

Reply of M/s Bindra-Respondent No. 6:-

40. A reply affidavit of Mr.Shailesh Parab, is filed on behalf of Respondent No.6- M/s.Bindra, opposing the petition. It is contended that the society was justified in appointing M/s.Bindra as a new developer being frustrated on account of conduct of the petitioner who took one year after petitioner's appointment to apply for revalidation of Annexure-II and the NOC which ought to have been obtained within 15 days. It is contended that further after applying for revalidation of Annexure-II on 9 August 2007, the petitioner was able to obtain certification of AnnexureII on 23 December 2013 that is after 6 years and 3 months from the date of application and 7 years and 3 months from the date of execution of development agreement between the society and the petitioner. It is contended that in fact period of 7 years and 3 months is sufficient time to complete the entire re-development project by which time the petitioner could achieve only one step of obtaining Annexure-II, which is a list certifying the eligible and ineligible occupants on the slum property. It is submitted that after obtaining certification of Annexure-II, the next step is the issuance of a Letter of Intent by SRA, this process in ordinary course takes about 3 months. It is submitted that here also there is delay purportedly on account of a circular dated 23 December 2013 issued by the Municipal Commissioner mandating the requirement of compulsory 6 meters open space. It is contended that again on this aspect, there is negligence on the part of petitioner, as it took the petitioner about 9 months (i.e. 12 September 2014) to submit fresh set of plans. It is contended that the petitioner has accordingly failed to explain and show sufficient and just cause as to why such a long period was taken to submit fresh building plans which ought to have been submitted within one month from obtaining LOI. It is, thus, submitted that the petitioner did not take steps to obtain LOI for the next 2 years and nearly after about 10 years from the date of the society entering into the development agreement (8 November 2006), and consequently the society was required to file an application on 15 March 2016, under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act, for change of developer, which was rightly granted by the Chief Executive Officer, by an order dated 24 April 2017 and confirmed by the High Power Committee, by the impugned order dated 30 October 2017.

41. It is contended that in pursuance of the impugned decision, the Managing Committee, convened a General Body Meeting of all the members which was held on 1 May 2017, to consider the appointment of a new developer and a majority decision was taken by members of the society to appoint M/s.Bindra as a new developer. It is contended that a development agreement is accordingly entered between the society and M/s Bindra, as also a power of attorney has been executed in favour of M/s Bindra to execute the slums scheme for the society. It is contended that in view of the status-quo order dated 20 December 2017, a revised LOI had remained to be issued in favour of the Society. It is further contended that M/s.Bindra is in the process of executing an agreement for permanent alternate accommodation with the eligible members of the society and that till date out of 78 eligible members, 65 members have already executed agreements for permanent alternate accommodation. It is contended that M/s.Bindra is capable of implementing the slum rehabilitation scheme of the society in a speedy and expeditious manner when the petitioner did not even take the first step of obtaining LOI for 10 years. It is contended that the petitioner has failed to justify the inordinate delay of 10 to 11 years and to explain the delay even to take the first step to obtain an LOI. It is, thus, contended that the view taken by the authorities is a correct view. There is no illegality in the order passed by the authorities and the petition is required to be dismissed with costs.

Submissions on behalf of the petitioner:-

42. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioner, in assailing the impugned orders in reiterating the contentions of the petitioner as urged in the petition would contend that both the authorities have failed to consider that a Letter of Intent was granted in favour of the petitioner on 30 May 2016 which was after issuance of the first show cause notice dated 5 May 2016 on the application of the society dated 15 March 2016 for change of developer. It is, thus, submitted that when on 30 May 2016, an LOI was granted, there was deemed condonation of any delay in the petitioner's undertaking the slum rehabilitation project. It is next submitted that both the authorities have taken different periods in reaching to a conclusion that there was delay on the part of the petitioner in obtaining the LOI. It is submitted that the steps which are taken by the petitioner to obtain the LOI, have been completely overlooked by both the authorities. It is next submitted that the observations that the petitioner started taking steps only after the society submitted its application on 15 March 2016, to the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, to initiate an action under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act,to terminate the petitioner's appointment is wholly incorrect. It is submitted that different steps which were taken by the petitioner to obtain LOI is part of record and it was in the hands of authorities to have processed the various applications and grant an LOI after preparation of the LOI reports. It is submitted that in fact the society initiated steps to change the petitioner as a developer having acquired the knowledge that all steps taken by the petitioner have materialized and LOI would shortly be issued. It is next submitted that after having taken so many steps, it cannot be left to the slum dwellers to change the developer in the manner it has been done in the present case. It is submitted that only case of the society was of delay and which has remained to be justified on record by the society. It is next submitted that the Mr. Vishwas Pati,l the then Chief Executive Officer, had malafide and illegally passed the impugned order to remove the petitioner as the developer of the society, just before his retirement.

Submissions on Behalf of the Society:-

43. Mr. Samdhani, learned Senior Counsel for the society, submits that no interference in this petition is called for as there are concurrent findings of fact as rendered against the petitioner by both the authorities. It is submitted that majority of the 78 eligible slum dwellers have taken a decision to appoint M/s.Bindra as a new developer. It is submitted that since 1997, the society is intending to develop the land in question and had appointed M/s. Saral, who had also obtained Annexure-II, and as M/s.Saral failed to take further steps to undertake the development and as there was an inordinate delay on its part and the NOC issued by MHADA in favour of M/s Saral being cancelled, the petitioner was appointed by the society in the month of June 2006 as a new developer. It is submitted that after appointment of the petitioner in 2007, the first proposal was moved by the petitioner to obtain Annexure-II, on 9 March 2009. Thus, there was a clear delay of more than 2 years for which there is no explanation. It is submitted that thereafter from 2009 to 2012, even scrutiny fee was not paid by the petitioner. It is submitted that there was, thus, a gross delay on the part of the petitioner, which was writ large for the authorities to come to a conclusion that the petitioner was required to be removed as a developer, in undertaking the slum rehabilitation project of the society, a ground available under section 13(2) of the Slums Act to remove a developer. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner that though the Society's application was pending for removal of the petitioner, nonetheless the department was processing the issuance of LOI and also permitted the petitioner to deposit certain amounts, cannot be accepted and can be no ground to set aside the impugned orders, for the reason that the powers are being exercised by different departments of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The proceedings of show cause notice are handled by the Chief Executive Officer and there are other departments processing the proposal, hence no case can be made out, on these ground that on the departments taking certain actions during the pendency of Section 13(2) application filed by the Society, the delay stands condoned. It is submitted that after filing of the Section 13(2) application by the Society on 15 March 2016 seeking change of the developer, the Chief Executive Officer, SRA, observing that the society had not held elections for a long period of time, had directed that the election of Chief Promoter and the Committee Members of the society be held in presence of the Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies- SRA and accordingly, elections of the Chief Promoter and Committee Members were held on 17 July 2016, in presence of the Assistant Registrar. Subsequent to which again on 24 July 2016, the newly elected committee passed a resolution terminating appointment of the petitioner and accordingly, informed the Chief Executive Officer, SRA, by letter dated 8 August 2016. It is submitted that for a period of three years that is from the year 2007 to 2010 there was no explanation forthcoming from the petitioner as to what steps the petitioner had taken to pursue the scheme and as to why an LOI was not obtained. It is submitted that steps were taken by the petitioner to process the LOI, only after the society had filed an application for removal of the petitioner. It is submitted that now an agreement is already entered into by the society with M/s.Bindra as also individual agreements are entered with the slum dwellers and in these circumstances no relief be granted by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution. Mr.Samdhani, in support of the proposition of removal of a developer by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, on the ground of inordinate delay, exercising powers under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act, has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Susme Builders Private Limited vs. Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Others, (2018) 2 Supreme Court Cases 230, also on the decision of the Division Bench in K.S. Chamankar Enterprises & Anr. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition (L.) No.3563 of 2017 & Other petitions decided on 27 March 2018, and the decision of Single Judge of this Court in M/s.Ravi Ashish Land Developers Ltd. Versus Prakash Pandurang Kamble & Anr., Appeal From Order No.1019 of 2010 dated 7 February 2013.

Submissions on Behalf of the SRA-Respondent No. 3 and 5:-

44. Mr.Patil learned counsel appearing for the SRA would submit that no interference is called for in exercise of the Court's powers under Articles 226 of the Constitution. It is submitted that there is no explanation and/or a sufficient cause much less any satisfactory explanation offered by the petitioner which would in any manner justify that the society’s application for change of developer filed on the ground of inordinate delay by the petitioner in undertaking the slum scheme of the society, ought to have been dismissed. It is submitted that concurrent findings of the facts as set out, in both the orders require no interference as there is no perversity or any illegality in the findings recorded by both the authorities and the approach adopted by the authorities, in passing the impugned orders, which it is submitted are passed in accordance with law. Mr. Patil has also submitted the record of the SRA for perusal of the Court, in contending that the orders are passed strictly in accordance with law and that the allegations of malafides as made on behalf of the petitioner are untenable.

Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No.6-M/s Bindra:-

45. Mr. Vashi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No.6 Bindra, while supporting the impugned orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer, and as confirmed by the High Power Committee, would submit that there is unanimous decision of the society in removing the petitioner as a developer. It is submitted that even the amounts are deposited by M/s.Bindra. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in fact a defaulter in making payment of the land premium charges of Rs.2,65,81,280/and the case of the petitioner that it has paid the first installment is an eye wash, as these are self created installments and no installment to that effect as projected by the petitioner is granted by the authorities. It is, therefore, submitted that there was no readiness to deposit the amounts of the premium as directed by the authority as also to that effect, there is no statement made in the writ petition. It is, therefore, submitted that it is in the interest of slum dwellers that the newly appointed developer is permitted to develop the project by sustaining the orders which are passed by the authorities.

Petitioner's Rejoinder :-

46. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder has countered the arguments as made on behalf of the respondents, pointing out the letter dated 27 April 2016, by the SRA calling upon the petitioner to pay the instalment of the land premium. It is submitted that the payment of Rs.39,72,192/- as the first installment has rightly been made and the second and third installments were due as set out in items 5 and 6 of the chart as contained in the said letter of the SRA addressed to the petitioner. Reiterating the arguments as made in support of the petition, Mr. Dhakephalkar would submit that the petition be allowed.

Discussion and Conclusion:

47. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the record. Also I have perused the original files submitted by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, in regard to the proposal of the petitioner.

48. The land in question is a government land and has remained under the control of MHADA. There is no material on record to show that MHADA in some manner known to law, allotted any space and or tenements on this land to the occupants who have now titled themselves as “Slum Dwellers”. These persons having continued to occupy the government land for so many years, have now become entitled under the policies of the government, for a ‘free of cost’ permanent alternative accommodation to be conferred upon them under a slum redevelopment scheme, to be submitted at the behest of the slum dwellers, by a developer appointed by them as permissible under regulation 33 (10) of the DCR. It appears from the record that about 78 slum dwellers are now certified to be eligible for allotment of a permanent alternative accommodation. It also appears that the said land has been regarded as a slum within the meaning of regulation No.33 (10) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay. Even the petitioner never disputed that the land is a slum and would fall within the purview of the Slums Act.

49. It is not in dispute that in the year 1997-98, the occupants of the this land had proposed to form a co-operative society (respondent no.2) and appointed one M/s Saral as a developer to undertake redevelopment of the slum, by constructing a building to rehabilitate the slum dwellers as per the provisions of Regulation No.33 (10) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay. M/s Saral Developers on behalf of the society had submitted a proposal for development on 6 November 1997. The Chief Executive Officer of MHADA also issued a certified AnnexureII on 16 April 1998 holding 73 slum dwellers to be eligible for allotment of a permanent alternate accomodation free of cost. As M/s Saral Developers did not take further steps for almost abut 8 years, the MHADA on 14 July 2005 cancelled the "no objection" which was issued in favour of M/s Saral Enterprises.

50. Confronted with the inconsequential appointment of M/s Saral and the consequent cancellation of the "no objection certificate" issued in favour of M/s Saral Developers, the record indicates that the society on 19 July 2005, appointed the petitioner as a new developer while appointing the society’s office bearers namely Mr.Naresh Babubhai Patel as President, Kishore Poojari as Vice-President, Mr.P.M.Manjrekar as Chief Promoter, Mr. Dinesh Apankar Secretary, Mr.Vinayak Savant as ViceSecretary, Mr.Sanjay Gharad as Treasurer along with 18 other members as promoters. The society thereafter entered into a development agreement dated 4 November 2006, with the petitioner, which was executed by the said President, Vice-President and other office-bearers of the society. On the same day, an irrevocable General Power of Attorney came to be issued in favour of the petitioner by the society, conferring all powers and authorities to undertake the slum rehabilitation scheme. A perusal of the Power of Attorney, would indicate that there is nothing left which would prevent the petitioner from undertaking anything to do with the scheme or deal with the authorities in respect of the said scheme.

51. The record reveals that what M/s Saral could do in eight years of its appointment, was to get the Annexure II, namely the list of the 73 eligible occupants certified from the MHADA. It was, thus, expected from the petitioner that the revalidation of Annexure II, which was possibly not a complex formality be undertaken at the earliest. However this certainly did not happen and citing various reasons, which cannot be believed to be not attributable to the petitioner, ultimately, the petitioner could not get the Annexure II certified only on 23 December 2013, which is after about eight years of the petitioner’s appointment. This fact itself raises a serious doubt as to the real intentions of the petitioner to undertake the scheme. The petitioner could not have simply blamed the authorities for the delay, as there is complete lack of concrete and/or any real steps which were to be taken by the petitioner to effectively seek different approvals, once the society had put the petitioner in the driver’s seat, in complete control of the project as rightly commented, in the impugned orders. Thus, the case of the petitioner, that from time to time steps were taken to implement the slum scheme as entrusted to it be the society cannot be accepted. These are the contentions of the petitioner, merely pointing out some movement of the files with the authorities. This was certainly not sufficient and what was required and expected by the petitioner was to take real effective steps to progress the slum redevelopment. The petitioner was expected to expeditiously obtain an Annexure II, as certified by the MHADA, thereafter obtain a LOI and then obtain a Commencement Certificate to start with the constructions and before that make a provision for temporary alternate accommodation for the slum dwellers to reside till completion of the scheme. There is not an iota of material to show that any such steps much less expeditiously were taken by the petitioner which will show the real bonafides of the petitioner to undertake the scheme.

52. In fact the petitioner kept the slum dwellers/society in dark on any of the steps alleged to be taken by the petitioner. There was no transparency in the petitioner’s approach with the slum-dwellers whose anxious, impatient and painful wait of so many years for the slum scheme to start was continuously staring at the petitioners right from the word go. This was not what was expected of a diligent developer. The slum schemes are expected to be taken and pursued by the developers for genuine and bonafide object and purpose to redevelop the slums as reflected in the rules which is for the mutual benefit namely the benefit of the slum dwellers of being provided a permanent alternate accommodation and so far as the developer, to exploit the free sale component, which is nothing but a business consideration for the developer. If this be the long and short of a slum scheme what can be the intention of a developer to sit tight on a slum scheme and not take expeditious measures to undertake and complete the scheme. The reasons can be innumerable, if the reasons are attributable to the authorities, the developer has certainly remedies in law to be immediately resorted. No forum competent to entertain such complaints would refuse to look into such grievances when the very right to livelihood of the slum dwellers who are living in inhuman conditions, being a concomitant of Article 21 of the Constitution, is involved and which becomes a matter of urgent concern and of utmost priority. A developer cannot shut his eyes to all these factors and attributes, once appointed by the society. For the developer, there has be relentless action on day to day basis, as any delay in not implementing the slum scheme is not only detrimental to the slum dwellers, but to the society at large. Delay in effective implementation of the slum scheme would defeat the very goal, the ideals and the purpose of the slum redevelopment scheme.

53. A perusal of the record indicates that the society is correct in contending that during the period from 2006 to 2016 i.e. for about 10 years the petitioner did not take any concrete steps towards implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme and the petitioner had clearly failed to obtain a LOI for such a long period. The society, thus, was constrained to file the application dated 15 March 2016, under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act, praying for change of the petitioner as the developer. It is correct that Annexure-II was originally issued by MHADA on 16 April 1998. The petitioner was appointed as developer in the month of June 2006 and it clearly took about seven to eight years for the petitioner to obtain revised Annexure-II which was obtained on 23 December 2013. Before the Chief Executive Officer and even before the appellate authority the petitioner has failed to show any justifiable reason as to why it took these many years for the petitioner to simply obtain a revised Annexure-II when as per norms issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority Annexure-II is required to be finalised within a period of four months when the hutment dwellers are below 500 in number. Further the record clearly indicates that even after obtaining the revised Annexure II, on 23 December 2013, the petitioner did not initiate immediate steps to obtain LOI for the next three years. There is, thus, much substance in the contention of the society that only after the society initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act, the petitioner initiated steps to obtain a LOI.

54. On the above clear backdrop, I am not persuaded to accept any of the submissions of Mr. Dhakephalkar learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. The contention that the LOI was ultimately granted on 30 May 2016, and hence there is no requirement to change the developer as the delay stood condoned, cannot be accepted in the clear facts and circumstances of the case. In fact, this is a clear admission on the part of the petitioner that there was not only delay but it was inordinate. In any case LOI sought to be obtained after about ten years of the petitioner’s appointment, would not in any manner condone the conduct of the petitioner in delaying the scheme and the inherent lack of diligence, rigour and earnestness which was expected. There is another reason as to why this argument cannot be accepted, namely that the society’s application under Section 13(2) for change of developer was prior in time, and the petitioner clearly appears to have awakened from a deep slumber and started taking actions, with the engineering department purporting to show of having achieved another step, now of a LOI being obtained. These actions of the petitioners as rightly held in both the impugned orders could not have frustrated the society's application for change of the developer. Even the payments which are stated to be made by the petitioner to the SRA towards part of the land premium, would also not assist the petitioner in the facts of the case. Such payments cannot create any equity much less a legal right with the petitioner to continue with the scheme in the facts as they stand. These amounts as partly being paid are in any case being refunded to the petitioner.

55. There cannot be a myopic approach to these issues of a delay in implementation of a slum rehabilitation scheme. Things as they stand are required to be seen in their entirity. The only mantra for the slum schemes to be implemented is it's time bound completion and a machinery to be evolved by the authorities, to have effective measures in that direction to monitor the schemes as a part of their statutory obligation to avoid delays. Non-commencement of the slum scheme for long years and substantial delay in completion of the slum schemes should be a thing of the past. In the present case, looked from any angle there is no plausible explanation forthcoming for the delay of so many years at the hands of the petitioner to take bare minimum steps to commence construction.

56. The authorities should weed away and reprimand persons who are not genuine developers and who are merely agents and dealers in slum schemes. These persons after get themselves appointed as developers, to ultimately deal/sell the slum schemes, as if it is a commodity. Any loopholes in the rules to this effect, therefore, are required to be sealed.

57. The next contention of Mr. Dhakhephalkar that Mr. Vishwas Patil the then CEO had cleared files just before his retirement and appointed new developers appears to be an argument of the petitioner in total desperation. The record clearly does not reflect any such attempt. This apart there is no material that even if a LOI was to be obtained, as to what arrangements the petitioner had made to provide for so many other requirements such as a temporary alternate accommodation to the slum dwellers or the wherewithal in that regard.

58. In any case, the developer cannot be said to possess a vested right which would mandate the SRA to continue it's appointment for such delay and when the body appointing the said developer namely the society itself, in the given set of facts, bonafide and for an acceptable reasons, lacks confidence in the petitioner as appointed by it. Between the slum society and the developer, it is merely a contractual dispute. It cannot be said that the society in adverse circumstances would have no authority in a resolution so passed by the majority to remove a developer. The role of the S.R.A. under law is to further the interest of the slum scheme by exercise of it's powers in the best interest of the slum redevelopment and pass such appropriate orders to achieve the said object, in exercising it's powers inter alia under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act.

59. The law in regard to the authority for the SRA to change the developer in exercise of powers under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act, is well-settled. Some decisions in this context are required to be noted. The Supreme Court in Susme Developers vs Chief Executive Officer, SRA & ors,(supra), was considering an issue in regard to change of developer in a slum redevelopment scheme on the ground of unexplained delay. In considering the intention of the legislature the Court held that, "the slum rehabilitation authority was within its powers under Section 13 (2) of the Slum Act, to take action when there is any violation of any plan or when there is violation of any condition relating to developing the project within time". The Court in paragraph Nos.43 to 48 observed as under :
"THE SCOPE OF POWERS UNDER SECTION 13(2) OF THE SLUM ACT:
42. The relevant portion of Section 13 of the Slum Act which is the bone of contention between the parties reads as follows;
“13. Power of Slum Rehabilitation Authority to develop slum rehabilitation area:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (10) of section 12, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority may, after any area is declared as the Slum Rehabilitation Area, if the landholders or occupants of such area do not come forward within a reasonable time, with a scheme for re-development of such land, by order, determine to redevelop such land by entrusting it to any agency for the purpose.
(2) Where on declaration of any area as a Slum Rehabilitation Area the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, is satisfied that the land in the Slum Rehabilitation Area has been or is being developed by the owner in contravention of the plans duly approved, or any restrictions or conditions imposed under sub-section (10) of section 12, or has not been developed within the time, if any, specified under such conditions, it may, by order, determine to develop the land by entrusting it to any agency recognised by it for the purpose:
Provided that, before passing such order, the owner shall be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why such order should not be passed."
44. Shri Darius Khambata, learned senior counsel appearing for Susme urged that under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act, the SRA is entitled to take action only against the owner. He also submits that Section 13(2) will apply only when there is violation of the conditions imposed under sub-section (10) of Section 12 of the Slum Act and the condition with regard to the time should also be a condition contained in sub-section 10 of Section 12. He submits that there is no power to take action under this section against the developer. According to him, action could have been taken by the SRA against the Society but not against Susme.
45. We cannot accept such a wide submission. According to us, under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act, the SRA has the authority to take action and hand over the development of land to some other recognized agency under three circumstances:
(i) When there is contravention of the plans duly approved;
(ii) When there is contravention of any restriction or condition imposed under sub-section 10 of Section 12 of the Slum Act; and
(iii) When the development has not taken place within time, if any, specified.
46. The requirement to complete the development within time may be there in the letter of intent issued by the SRA or may be in the agreement entered into between the owner/developer with the slum dwellers. Such condition, if violated, would attract the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Slum Act. Over and above that, when a clearance order is passed, then in terms of subsection (10) of Section 12, the competent authority can include a condition with regard to the time within which the development should be completed and in that case also Section 13(2) would be attracted. We are not, however, able to accept the very wide argument that in case of delay, the condition that is violated must be laid down under Section 12(10) of the Slum Act.
47. There may be cases where the slum dwellers do not offer any resistance and willingly consent to move into transit accommodation provided by the owner/developer. Therefore, the conditions laid down under Section 12(10) will come into play only when there is a clearance order, but in case there is no clearance order, then under Section 13(2), the SRA would be empowered to take action when there is violation of any plan or when there is violation of any condition relating to developing the project within time. The time limit can, some time, be provided in the letter of intent, in the agreement or even in the regulations.
48. Having held so, we are of the view that Shri Darius Khambata, learned senior counsel, is right in his submission that normally under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act, action by the SRA has to be taken against the owner. Here, we may repeat that this is a unique case where the slum dwellers are the members of the owner-Society. The Society, in turn, has given power of attorney to the builder. The builder virtually has two roles – one as developer and the other as power of attorney holder of the owner. Both are closely interlinked and inextricably mixed with each other. Therefore, though normally we would have accepted the contention that under Section 13(2) action can only be taken against the owner, in the present case, we are unable to accept this contention in its totality. We may point out that even the SRA, in its order, has itself noted that since the Society is the owner of the plot of land, it is empowered and within its right to terminate the agreement executed with the said developer for breaches committed by the developer. It has, however, held that a private dispute between the Society and the developer cannot prevent the SRA from discharging its obligations. The SRA agreed with the submission made by the Society that Susme had not completed the project within time. It has taken action under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act. The action taken by the SRA is to remove Susme as developer which amounts to cancelling the letter of intent issued in favour of Susme."

60. In K.S.Chamankar Enterprises & anr vs The State of Maharashtra & ors in Writ Petition (L) No.3563 of 2017 decided by a Division Bench on 27th March 2018, a similar view has been taken, that when there was inordinate delay in the implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme, the developer would not have any right to contend that he should be continued as a developer.

61. In Hi Tech India Construction vs Chief Executive Officer & ors, 2015 (3) Bom C.R. 370 it was held that mere issuance of Annexure II would be of no consequence. In para 4 and 5 the Division Bench made the following observations :
4. “Prima facie, there was, in the first instance itself therefore, considerable delay from the time when the petitioners submitted the proposal on 23rd February 2006 to the approval of the letter of intent on 20th May 2009. The petitioners explanation for this is that the Annexure -II was issued only on 14th August 2006. Ms.Iyer the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon a letter dated 15th May 2008 to explain the delay in the payment of premium which was also expressly referred to in the approval of the letter of intent. It appears that the Deputy Engineer of the SRA had by a letter dated 8th May 2008, called upon the petitioners to pay the premium. The petitioners replied to the same by its letter dated 15th May 2008. The petitioners agreed to the payment of the premium and requested SRA to inform them as to how the payment was to be released and whether it could be released in instalments.
5. The mere issuance of the letter dated 15th May 2008 would not indicate that there was no delay on the part of the petitioners. These are slum rehabilitation schemes. It is for the developers to pursue the matter and to ensure that the scheme is implemented without delay. Developers cannot. By merely addressing letters to the authorities, sit back and contend that they had nothing more to do in the matter till they received a reply.“

62. Thus, it is quite clear that inordinate delay is a sufficient ground for removal of a developer. There is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the findings as recorded by both authorities below, in observing that the petitioner had grossly delayed the implementation of the slum scheme in question. The findings as recorded in the impugned order passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee are also sufficiently borne out by the files produced before this Court. The relevant findings of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee in paragraph 10 and 11 are required to be noted which reads thus :
“10. After hearing the arguments and considering the documents on record, this committee is of view that Respondent no.3 Shree Ashtavinayak SRA CHS (P) situated on subject S R Scheme plot of land in the year 2006 appointed M/s Galaxy Enterprises as their developer for redevelopment of the said plot of land owned and vested with MHADA under Regulation 33 (10) of DCR 1991. Thereafter MHADA by letter dated 9th August 2007 informed Architect Ajit Ambekar of Ajit Ambekar and Associates that pursuant to his letter dated 26th May 2007, MHADA has no objection for redevelopment of said plot of land provided that the said developer appointed by Shree Ashtavinayak SRA CHS (P) has more than 70% consent of eligible slum dwellers in his favour.
11. From the aforesaid fact it is clear that respondent no.3 Shree Ashtavinayak SRA CHS (P) in June 2006 appointed Applicant M/s Galaxy Enterprises as their developer for implementation of the SRA scheme and MHADA being land owning authority had also issued NOC by letter dated 9th August 2007 in spite of the said facts the Applicant developer submitted the proposal before SRA on 8th April 2010 and which was duly accepted by SRA as same was complete in all respect. Delay for period of 3 years after the grant of NOC by MHADA letter dated 9th August 2007 is not justified.
Even after issuance of Certified Annexure -II dated 23rd December 2013 issued by Chief Officer, MHADA and competent authority applicant M/s Galaxy Enterprises further failed to take any steps for obtaining LOI. Further the contention of Applicant M/s Galaxy enterprises developer that due to new policy for 6 mtr compulsory Open Space the scheme is delayed cannot be accepted b y this committee.
Further Applicant Developer M/s Galaxy Enterprises started to take steps only after Respondent no.3 Ashtavinayak SRA CHS (P) 's application dated 15th March 2016 addressed to CEO/SRA to initiate action under section 13 (2) of Maharashtra Slum Areas ( I C & R) Act 1971 for terminating appointment of their developer M/s Galaxy Enterprises.
The aforesaid facts establishes inordinate delay on the part of the Applicant Developer M/s Galaxy Enterprises for implementing subject SR scheme and mere issuance of LOI dated 30th May 2016 and payment of 1st and 2nd instalments of Land Rate premium does not justify the inordinate delay as the said steps have been taken only after filing of the application dated 15th March 2016 by Respondent no.3 Shree Ashtavinayak SRA CHS (P) for action under section 13 (2) of Maharashtra Slum Areas (I C & R) Act, 1971.”

63. Before parting, it needs to be noted that the land in question is a land belonging to the State Government/MHADA and if the land is under slums and the occupants are suffering, whether it would also not be the responsibility of the MHADA considering the provisions of Chapter IX of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1976, being a chapter on "Environmental Improvement of Slums", providing for Section 104 to Section 113 of the said Act, to take time to time actions and consider with utmost priority the rehabilitation of the slum dwellers?. It clearly appears that in the present case, the entire re-development of the slums is left in the hands of the developer by the slum dwellers, who are struggling to appoint one developer after another. The MHADA appears to be an absolute alien when all these actions are being taken by the society. Already, about three developers are appointed by the Society including the present developer M/s Bindra, as noted above, despite this whether the slum dwellers will at all see the light of the day, is a factor which is required to be seriously considered by the slum rehabilitation authority and the MHADA by having a compliance and a follow up mechanism. It is high time that at least in regard to the slums on government lands or land belonging to a public bodies, the government needs to have a concrete and effective policy and 'which may include a panel of reputed contractors/developers, which would genuinely undertake and implement the slum rehabilitation scheme and bring a speedy and effective rehabilitation of slum dwellers. This is required to be observed for the simple reason that the record in the present petition would clearly show that the MHADA or the State authorities have not utilised and/or have turned a blind eye to the provisions of the law to take effective steps in the larger interest of the society, instead things were completely left at the hands of a private developer and the helpless slum dwellers. Dealing with the Government land certainly involves dealing with the public largess. Surely the hands of the State and its authorities are not so weak. What is required is a willingness and an able and authoritative guidance from those who wield these powers for public good. As noted, it would be for the good wisdom of the State and its policy makers to deliberate on these issues which are "also" of immense importance to a city like Mumbai where large parts of the limited lands are under slums. Such approach also needs to be timely adopted for the other fast developing cities in Maharashtra, where the government land is scarce, before it is too late.

64. In the above circumstances, I find that the petition is wholly misconceived. No ground is made out to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts as recorded by the Chief Executive Officer of SRA and the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal in the facts and circumstances cannot be unconditional. It is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner with the National Association for the Blind within two weeks from today.

65. A copy of this judgment be forwarded to (i) the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, (ii) the Principal Secretary, (Housing), and (iii) to the Chairman, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Mumbai.

66. At this stage Mr.Bhosale, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks continuation of the ad-interim reliefs granted by this Court.

67. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the request cannot be accepted. It is rejected.