SIGTIA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions challenge the order dated February 6, 2007 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short "SRA"). The controversy in all these petitions relates to the grant of Letter of Intent (for short "LOI") for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (for short "Scheme") on a plot bearing CTS Nos. 439 to 442, 443, 444 (part), 447, 451, 452, 453A and 454A situate at village Vileparle, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai Suburban District (for short the "said plot") of the proposed Premnagar Cooperative Housing Society (for short "Society), therefore all these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. Writ petition No. 1036 of 2007 is instituted by M/s. Sigtia Constructions Private Limited (for short "M/s. Sigtia"). Writ petition No. 1075 of 2007 is instituted by Mr. Ramchandra Mahadev Jagtap and nine Others (for short hereinafter referred to as"Jagtap and Ors.") who are eligible slum dwellers and are residents of the said plot. Writ Petition No. 1589 of 2007 is instituted by M/s. Keya Developers and Construction Private Limited (for short hereinafter referred as "M/s. Keya Developers"). Writ Petition No. 2720 of 2008 is instituted by Mr. Chandrakant Sitaram Mane (hereinafter referred to as "Mane"), challenging the order dated February 6, 2007 passed by the SRA, as also for directions to the SRA to choose one of the two competing builders and developers in compliance with the directions of the Apex Court in its order dated November 7, 2006. It is interesting to note that Mr. Mane did not implead M/s. Sigtia and M/s. Keya Developers as also the Society in the petition.

(2.) The controvery in all these petitions arise in the following circumstances:

(3.) It is the case of M/s. Sigtia that their Architect submitted proposal alongwith Annexure I, II and III complete in all respects to the SRA on September 11, 2002. After ensuring the completeness of the proposal submitted, the computerised File Number is allotted to the Scheme. The Assistant Engineer, SRA, found M/s. Sigtia's proposal in order and accordingly gave computerised No. KW/ MCGM/0008/20021003 and directed payment of scrutiny fees for Annexures I, II and III as required by Clause 11 of the Guidelines. It is the case of M/s. Sigtia that the proposal submitted by them was accepted in terms of Clause 11 thereof and accordingly scrutiny fee of Rs. 19,750/was paid by them. On October 10, 2002, the draft Annexure II was forwarded by the Deputy Collector, SRA, to the Additional Collector (Encroachment), who is designated as a sole competent authority for deciding eligibility for verification and certification of Annexure II. The affidavitcum declaration was given by individual slum dwellers with their spouse on November 26, 2002 declaring that they will give cooperation to the Architect and M/s. Sigtia. Individual tripartite agreement was entered into between the Society, M/s. Sigtia and individual slum dwellers with their spouse on November 26, 2002. Clause (xv) of the said agreement recorded that for executing the work, an irrevocable power of attorney was given to M/s. Sigtia. The Additional Collector (Encroachment), 2nd Respondent herein after visiting the site and verifying the documents, certified Annexure II wherein it is noted that out of 565 protected/ eligible structures, 438 slum dwellers had given consent to M/s. Sigtia for the scheme which was more than 77% as against required 70% as per Clause 2 of the Guidelines. On February 24, 2004 the Finance Controller of SRA approved M/s. Sigtia's Annexure III and certified that they are financially sound for implementing the Scheme. On February 26, 2004 the society gave an undertaking on solemn affirmation that it is satisfied with the performance of M/s. Sigtia and they would continue with them and the Architect till the project is completed. The Society executed irrevocable power of attorney in favour of M/s. Sigtia confirming earlier irrevocable power of attorney dated April 23, 2002. It recorded that due to sustained efforts of the Directors of M/s. Sigtia, a lot of progress was achieved and the Society was awaiting issuance of LOI. While the SRA was in process of issuing the LOI to M/s. Sigtia, Mr. Jagtap and Ors. instituted Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004 in this Court on March 29, 2004, questioning among others (i) the election of the office bearers of the Society, (ii) Annexure II issued in favour of the Society, (iii) 70% consent of Slum dwellers in favour of M/s. Sigtia and (iv) Technical and financial competence of M/s. Sigtia.