OM SHRI SAI DEVLOPERS Vs. SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, the petitioner has primarily amongst others made the following prayers:

(2.) THESE prayers have been made on the averments of the petitioner which is a firm engaged in construction business and was appointed as the developer by respondent No. 2 society vide agreement dated 3rd March, 1996. The petitioner persuaded the slum dweller to join the scheme for which they consented and the society passed resolution on 1st March, 1996 in its General Body Meeting for implementation of Slum Redevelopment scheme through the petitioner. The Slum rehabilitation Authority, hereinafter referred to as the 'authority', on 6th January, 1998 issued L. O. I. , I. O. D. and Commencement certificate upto the plinth level. The respondent-society did not cooperate and started making illegal demands and some of the slum dwellers refused to shift which brought the scheme to stall. On 14th January, 1998, notice was issued by Mumbai Municipal corporation against the petitioner which was replied to wherein all these facts were brought to the notice of the authority but in view of the false complaint lodged by respondent no. 2, the authority did not issue the commencement certificate for the further work. On this basis, even on 24th March, 2000, a resolution was passed by the Special General body Meeting to remove the petitioner. This resolution is stated to be fabricated and the petitioner filed the suit before the Bombay City civil Court being Suit No. 2045 of 2005. On 19th May, 2000, the respondent No. 1-Authority directed the petitioner to start the work of rehabilitation building in three months and that further commencement certificate was ready and called upon him to make the payment and collect the certificate. The petitioner gave an undertaking to the said authority and upon payment of revalidation charges on 22nd May, 2000, respondent No. 1 issued the certificate. Again on 1st September, 2000, members of the society informed the said authority that they intended to terminate the agreement dated 3. 3. 1996 executed in favour of the petitioner. Various disputes arose between the parties and they approached the different authorities including the police. On 22nd January, 2003, the petitioner informed the authority that they have completed the rehab D-Wing building and had commenced the work of constructing Rehab C-Wing. The authority had subsequently informed the petitioner that it has come to the notice upon inspection that rehabilitation building was occupied without obtaining occupation certificate. Vide letter dated 20th February, 2004, the respondent-Authority requisitioned the respondent-society to convene a meeting of all the members to declare the details of the slum Rehabilitation Scheme including interalia the name of the developer.

(3.) THE petitioner filed writ petition in this court being Writ Petition No. 2953 of 2004. In the said writ petition, the court passed the following order: "the respondent No. 2 is the authority having over all control, in the matter of development of the areas notified as slum area. The developer can be appointed only with their permission. The new developer can also be appointed only with their permission. Once that be the case, respondent No. 2 is duty bound before agreeing to the appointment of the new developer to hear the developer who has been working as to whether prima facie there is valid termination in the eyes of law. In the instant case, it appears that apart from some correspondence respondent No. 2 has not given hearing to the petitioner in the matter of termination of their contract of the development agreement by Pandit co-operative Housing Society Ltd. In the light of that Respondent No. 2 is directed to hear the petitioner and Pandit Co-operative housing Society Ltd. and if need be also respondent No. 4 as to whether the development agreement between the respondent No. 3 and the Petitioner has been prima facie validly terminated. If that be so, thereafter to decide the same according to law. "