Pratima Ramsevak Yadav vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority Sra on 10 October, 2023

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Pratima Ramsevak Yadav vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority Sra on 10 October, 2023

Bench: G.S. Patel

                                                      908-OSWPL-8973-2023.DOC




                                                                               Talwalkar



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION


                 WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 8973 OF 2023


 Pratima Ramsevak Yadav & Ors                                       ...Petitioners
       Versus
 Slum Rehabilitation Authority(SRA) & Ors                         ...Respondents



 Ms Gulnar Mistry, with Divya Parab, for the Petitioners.
 Mr SB Gore, AGP, with Uma Palsuledesai, AGP, for the Respondent-
      State.
 Mr Mayur Khandeparkar, with Simantini Mohite, for Respondent
      No. 1-SRA.



                               CORAM      G.S. Patel &
                                          Kamal Khata, JJ.

                               DATED:     10th October 2023
 PC:-

1. Having briefly heard Mr. Khandeparkar for 1st Respondent, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority ("SRA"), we believe that the presence of the MCGM will be required as Respondent No.4. The six Petitioners are all Project Affected Persons ("PAP"). They were initially not held eligible for rehabilitation under extant Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ("MCGM") policies. That eligibility was decided in their favour in 2019-20. But even that is Page 1 of 3 10th October 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2023 03:14:39 ::: 908-OSWPL-8973-2023.DOC three to four years ago, and they have yet to receive any form of assistance or relief whether as transit accommodation, transit rent or permanent alternative accommodation.

2. It often happens that the MCGM cannot accommodate eligible persons and therefore ask the SRA to provide PAP housing. But we do not see a possibility of eligible persons being pushed from one authority to the other once their eligibility has been favourably decided. This concept of eligibility remaining on paper, as an idle promise and nothing more, is anathema to law and every concept of justice and equity. It seems to us self-evident that the Petitioners are entitled to permanent alternative re-accommodation. That is their right. In the meantime, they are at least entitled to transit accommodation or transit rent and if it is a question of transit rent then that entitlement will be from the date they were found to be eligible at a minimum.

3. We permit Ms Mistry to amend the Petition to join the MCGM and the appropriate departments or officers as further respondents to the Petition and also to make such amendments to the body of the Petition or to the prayers as are thought necessary. These amendments are to be carried out without need of reverification by Friday 13th October 2023. A copy of the amended Petition will be served on the MCGM and on the Advocates for the SRA and the State Government by 14th October 2023.

4. List the matter on 19th October 2023.

Page 2 of 3

10th October 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2023 03:14:39 ::: 908-OSWPL-8973-2023.DOC

5. The affidavit on behalf of the SRA is to be filed in the Registry.

 (Kamal Khata, J)                                            (G. S. Patel, J)




                                  Page 3 of 3
                               10th October 2023


::: Uploaded on - 11/10/2023                       ::: Downloaded on - 12/10/2023 03:14:39 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court