LAWS(BOM)-2018-11-111

LOK HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTIONS LTD. & ANR. Vs. THE APEX GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY & ORS.

Decided On November 02, 2018
Lok Housing And Constructions Ltd. And Anr. Appellant
V/S
The Apex Grievance Committee Slum Rehabilitation Authority And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated 30 th August, 2018 passed on a show cause notice dated 11 th July, 2018 bearing no.385 of 2018 issued under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The petitioners also seek a direction to the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee to hear the appeal filed by the petitioners. The petitioners also seek setting aside of the orders dated 30 th August, 2018 and dated 16th October, 2018 passed by the CEO SRA- respondent no.2.

(2.) On behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Balsara contended that the proceeding in which the order was passed indicates undue haste and although pursuant to the show cause notice the petitioners were represented by their Advocates on 30 th August, 2018, respondent no.2 had terminated the appointment of the petitioner and permitted respondent no.3 to appoint a new developer. It is submitted that although the petitioners were directed to remain present the developer could not remain present since he was unwell but the petitioners Advocates have been regularly attending before the respondent no.2.

(3.) Mr. Balsara submitted that although an order dated 16 th October, 2018 is said to have been passed in a Suo-moto proceeding, it was Suo-moto but based on a complaint is incorrect. It is further submitted that although effectively an order was passed terminating the appointment of the petitioner on 30th August, 2018, only the operative portion was pronounced in the presence of parties and the reasoned order was made on 16th October, 2018, therefore the same was not available to the petitioners when the appeal was filed. He submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and in the meantime the appeal filed was directed to be heard expeditiously by the AGRC. He submitted that the petitioners were seriously prejudiced since they had no opportunity to test the order before the AGRC.