SIDDHIVINAYAK CHS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in the present matter reveal an unfortunate set of events, whereby despite orders of this Court attaining finality and further confirmed by the Apex Court, the Respondent No.2-Slum Rehabilitation Authority ('SRA') indicates its helplessness in implementing the said orders. At the outset, we are informed by the learned counsel for the SRA that its officers have made several representations and requests to the law enforcement agencies of the State of Maharashtra to provide assistance in enforcing the orders of this Court, but dehors any such assistance forthcoming, the authority is rendered powerless to act in aid of the orders of this Court. We are greatly perturbed to be told that the occupants of the area have mounted a resistance against demolition of the structures on the said properties despite clear orders of this Court and have persistently issued threats and employed intimidation tactics against the officers of the authority and have thereby successfully thwarted the implementation of the orders of this Court. This is wholly unacceptable and the rule of law must prevail. In a country governed by rule of law, it is the onerous duty of the Courts to deal with such elements with an iron hand so that the faith of the people in the judicial system is maintained. Any defiance to the rule of law must be dealt with sternly and strictly and it is to uphold the rule of law that we are constrained to pass the present order.

(2.) The Petitioners essentially seek a direction to the Respondent No.2-SRA to implement its own order dated 16 th February 2024 and notice dated 19 th March 2024 passed under Ss. 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ('the Slum Act'). The Petitioner also seeks direction to initiate eviction proceedings against the non co-operative slum dwellers and direct necessary action against the officers of the SRA, who have failed to perform their duty to implement the orders of the authority itself.

(3.) The case has a chequered history. The Petitioner No.1 is a proposed co-operative housing society formed by the slum dwellers residing on the said property at Final Plot Nos.39, 40, 41, 42, 71, 72 and 73 of the TPS, Santacruz No.5 along with 18.30 mtrs. wide D. P. Road of village Bandra, Mumbai. The Petitioner No.2 is a Developer and owns three out of seven plots and is appointed by the Petitioner No.1 to implement the SRA Scheme on the subject plot to be implemented on all the seven plots together. The Respondent No.1 is the State of Maharashtra; the Respondent No.3 is the Deputy Collector (Special Cell) of the Respondent No.2-SRA.