Summary of Judgement
Writ petition filed by a developer challenging the termination of their appointment by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to implement a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SR Scheme) in Mumbai. The developer, petitioner in this case, seeks to challenge the orders passed by the CEO of SRA and the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) regarding the termination of their appointment. The main contention revolves around the delay in implementing the scheme and the subsequent termination of the developer's appointment.
- Background:
- Overview of the petitioner's challenge against the termination order dated 2 August 2023 passed by the CEO, SRA, and the subsequent dismissal of their application by the AGRC.
- Property Details:
- Description of the land in Mahim, Mumbai, occupied by slum dwellers and designated for redevelopment under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
- Chronology of Events:
- Detailed timeline of actions taken by the petitioner and relevant authorities from proposal submission to termination of the petitioner's appointment.
- Legal Arguments:
- Arguments presented by both parties regarding the justification of the termination order and the petitioner's explanations for the delay in implementing the scheme.
- Analysis of Relevant Laws:
- Examination of the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, 1971, and other legal provisions governing slum rehabilitation schemes.
- Procedural Requirements:
- Explanation of the procedural steps involved in implementing an SRA scheme, including proposal submission, verification, LOI stage, building permission, transit rent, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation.
- Evaluation of Delay and Termination:
- Assessment of the petitioner's explanations for the delay, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and legal challenges, and the justification provided by the SRA for terminating the petitioner's appointment.
- Interpretation of Court Orders:
- Interpretation of relevant court orders, including an examination of whether the interim order from Writ Petition No. 1152 of 2002 impacted the petitioner's obligations.
- Precedent and Legal Authority:
- Reference to legal precedents supporting the SRA's authority to change developers in cases of inordinate delay in scheme implementation.
- Conclusion:
- Dismissal of the writ petition based on the findings of delay and loss of faith by slum dwellers, with reference to previous court judgments and legal principles.
- Ad-Interim Relief:
- Continuation of ad-interim relief for two weeks from the date of the decision.
Case Title: Prithvi Infra Projects, through its authorized signatory Umesh R. Shinde V/s. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee
Citation: 2024 Lawtext (BOM) (5) 102
Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION NO.6934 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2436 OF 2024
Advocate(s): Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Altaf Khan and Mr. Akash Bhagat for the petitioner. Mr. Karl Tamboly with Mr. Rupesh M. Geete & Mr. Shubhan Hundia i/by Satyaki Law Associates for the intervener. Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for respondent No.1- AGRC. Mr. Vijay Patil with Mr. Yogesh Patil for respondent No.2-SRA. Mr. Sanjeev Gorwadkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nitesh Acharya and Mr. Akash Mangalgi for respondent No.4. Mr. Prasad Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate (through V.C.) with Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, Mr. Vaibhav Charalwar, Mr. Ajay Vazirani, Ms. Raksha Thakkar (through V.C.), Ms. Karan Koya and Ms. Palak Salecha i/by Lexicon Law Partners for respondent No.6. Mr. Y.D. Patil, AGP for respondent No.7 – State.
Date of Decision: 2024-05-10
