SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY Vs. LAXMI MOHAN GHONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the slum rehabilitation authority and the Additional Collector, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, established under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I, C and R) Act, 1971. The respondents Nos. 1 to 13 are the slum dwellers and respondent No. 14 appears to be the developer. The nub of the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 15 who is the President, Maharashtra Slum Areas (I, C and R) Special Tribunal had passed the impugned order directing the petitioners to provide transit accommodation to the respondents 1 to 13, which he ought not to have passed.

(2.) THE facts are in a very narrow compass. On 15th March, 1999, the petitioner No. 2 had issued a show cause notice to respondent Nos. 1 to 13 calling upon them as to why their structures should not be demolished. It appears that the said respondents were heard in the matter and finally, the petitioner No. 1 had passed the order on 22nd April, 1999 exercising its powers under sections 33 and 38 of the Act. By the said order the respondents Nos. 1 to 13 were directed to hand over peaceful possession of the huts to the developer for developing the said slums under the Act and move to transit camp failing which, they were warned, the B. M. C. would demolish their structures. It appears that the respondent Nos. 1 to 13 had challenged the said order passed by the petitioners specifically under section 33 and section 38 of the Act before the respondent No. 15, President of Special Tribunal constituted under the Act to hear only certain types of appeals. It appears that while exercising his powers as an Appellate Authority, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to hand over alternate accommodation as offered to the applicants subject to the same terms and conditions as agreed between the similarly situated eligible appellants.

(3.) CURIOUSLY enough, though the Appellate Tribunal has purportedly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 13, the net result or outcome of his order is the same which was passed by the petitioners in their order dated 22nd April, 1999. The special Tribunal has passed the same order and has virtually, put his rubber stamp on the same, though he has erroneously mentioned that appeal was allowed.