SANTOSH TUKARAM PATIL Vs. SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 27/10/2023, the previous Advocates pointed out to us in fairness that they would be compelled to take a discharge due to unavoidable circumstances. We permitted this. At that time, Mr Bhavsar, learned Advocate was present. His appearance is noted in the order sheet. He requested for a long adjournment. Since the matter has been pending since September 2022, and before a Bench presided over by one of us, GS Patel J since 6/2/2023 almost continuously, we declined such a long adjournment. We listed the matter today. Our reasons for declining the adjournment application will be apparent from what follows.

(2.) Even today Mr Bhavsar's only instructions are to seek, yet again, another adjournment of four weeks. There is an ad-interim order running from 6/2/2023. This prejudices not only the 3rd Respondent but, more importantly, at least 100 other slum dwellers, all of whom are off-site, having been evicted from their hutments, and are elsewhere on transit rent.

(3.) Dr Saraf, learned Advocate General, appears for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority ("SRA"). He expresses a very real apprehension that in a project this small, relative to the size of other SRA projects, if the developer abandons the project, it is the 100 or more other slum dwellers who will be left completely stranded. There will then be great difficulty in providing them rehab accommodation. There will be the issue of unpaid transit rent causing untold hardship to those persons.