KAMAL JADHWANI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 30th January, 2018 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) and the order of the CEO, SRA dated 27th May, 2016. The petitioner was one of the applicant before the AGRC. He has sought setting aside of the order dated 27th May, 2016 terminating the appointment of the petitioner as developer under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ("Act"). It transpires that the petitioner was appointed in respect of plot of land admeasuring 20,547 sq. mtrs. SRA had obtained certified Annexure II as on 30th June, 1998. The petitioner claims to have spent a sum of Rs.30,22,55,040/ - towards payment of rent in lieu of transit temporary accommodation and these were paid in the name of society. The society has allegedly not disbursed the said amount to its members. Meanwhile at the instance of new developer a new committee of members of the society were elected in the year 2015. On a complaint to the SRA that delay has been caused in implementing Slum Rehabilitation scheme, the CEO SRA terminated the LOI issued by the petitioner.

(2.) Pursuant to show cause notice dated 29th January, 2016 it is contended that CEO SRA's office was expected to inform the further date of hearing to the petitioner, however, no such opportunity a hearing was granted to the petitioner. Although the petitioner was not heard in matter, the impugned order dated 27th May, 2016 came to be passed. According to Mr.Vashi, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the CEO SRA had in the impugned order dated 27th May, 2016 incorrectly recorded that the petitioner had appeared and that all parties were heard at length, however, no personal hearing was given to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the reason for delay in implementation of slum rehabilitation scheme was due to obstruction caused by slum dwellers.

(3.) Mr.Vashi submitted that notice came to be issued to the petitioner on 29th January, 2016 by SRA asking him to show cause pursuant to section 13(2) of the Act as to why his appointment should not be cancelled, since no progress had been made in the scheme. The petitioner was directed to attend the office of CEO (SRA) on 11th February, 2016 at 4 pm and submit his written submissions, However, on 11th February, 2016 CEO SRA was not available in the chamber and the written submissions setting out all reasons came to be filed on the said date. Mr.Vashi invited my attention to Exhibit-C to the petition being response to the show cause notice and submitted that various aspects of the claim had been dealt with including reasons for delay. The reply also contains a number of annexures and the petitioner was looking forward to personal hearing, however, since CEO SRA was unavailable, no hearing was held on that date despite which CEO SRA in the impugned order dated 26th May, 2016 has proceeded to record that in response to notice, the petitioner had appeared, submitted his say and office bearers of the society had appeared and all parties were heard at length. According to Mr.Vashi no such hearing took place and therefore, the impugned order was bad in law since it violated basic principles of natural justice.