OM SIDDHIVINAYAK SRA CHSL Vs. SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner-Society has fled this Petition challenging the Order dtd. 5/4/2024 passed by Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) rejecting Application No. 152 of 2023 fled by it and upholding the Order dtd. 8/12/2022 passed by Chief Executive Officer of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (CEO/SRA) rejecting Petitioner's application for termination of appointment of Respondent No. 2-Developer under Sec. 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance And Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act).

(2.) Considering the narrow controversy involved in the Petition, it is not necessary to narrate facts in detail as the case involves chequered history. Petition involves implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) on Plot of land bearing CTS No. 1/1218 F. P. No. 881 TPS-IV of Mahim Division Calcuttawal Chawl, Agar Bazar, Prabhadevi, Mumbai. The Slum Dwellers on the Plot have formed Petitioner-Society for carrying out re-development of Slum structures. There are 57 slum structures on the subject plot. Petitioner-Society appointed Respondent No.2 as a Developer to implement the SRS and accordingly, Development Agreement dtd. 11/5/2011 came to be entered between Petitioner and Respondent No.2. According to Petitioner- Society, appointment of Respondent No.2 as its Developer is traceable to the Resolutions adopted in the General Body Meetings of the Society held on 4/4/2011 and 24/4/2012. According to the Society, the General Body Resolutions (GBR) of 4/4/2011 and 24/4/2012 were illegally brought into existence on the basis of consents of bogus Slum Dwellers obtained in a fraudulent manner to falsely show 70% majority. According to Petitioner- Society, Respondent No.2 Developer failed to take any steps for implementation of the subject SRS despite passage of several years. On 23/10/2019, another General Body Meeting was shown to have been held, in which a Resolution is shown to have been adopted confirming the appointment of Respondent No.2 Developer. According to the Society, even the consents for GBR dtd. 23/10/2009 were obtained by considering votes of unauthorised persons. Based on re-appointment of Respondent No. 2 Developer in the GBR of 23/10/2009, proposal was submitted for implementation of the subject SRS with SRA by Respondent No. 2 on 30/7/2020. The same was accepted after issuance of requisite NOCs and after sanction of development plans, SRA issued Letter of Intent (LOI) dtd. 16/2/2022 and intimation of Approval (IOA) on 3/3/2022 in favour of Respondent No.2 Developer.

(3.) On 11/9/2022, Petitioner-Society adopted GBR signed by 29 out of 27 eligible members and terminated the mandate of Respondent No.2 Developer. The Society thereafter fled application dtd. 13/9/2022 for blacklisting the Developer and another Application dtd. 14/9/2022 for termination of appointment of Respondent No.2 under Sec. 13(2) of the Slum Act. Members of the Petitioner-Society addressed various complaints highlighting illegalities in issuance of LOI in favour of Respondent No. 2 Developer. Petitioner's Application for termination of appointment of Respondent No.2-Developer under Sec. 13(2) of the Slum Act came to be rejected by CEO/SRA by Order dtd. 8/12/2022. Petitioner approached AGRC by fling Application No. 152 of 2023, which came to be rejected by AGRC by Order dtd. 5/4/2024. Aggrieved by the decisions of CEO/SRA and AGRC, Petitioner Society has fled present Petition.