Bombay High Court
Moghiben Bhachubhai Gami vs The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee on 25 January, 2024
Author: Sandeep V. Marne
Bench: Sandeep V. Marne
2024:BHC-OS:1514
Neeta Sawant 1/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC
25 January 2024.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 16593 OF 2023
Moghiben Bhachubai Gami and ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
The Apex Grievance Redressal
Committee and Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Cherag Balsara,
Mr. Yashesh Kamdar, Mr. K. P. Ojha, Mr. Ankit Ojha, Mr. Anchit
Ojha, Mr. Kirti Ojha and Mr. Rakesh Dubey , for the Petitioners.
Mr. G.S. Godbole, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anoshak Daver,
Mr. Raghavendra S. Mehrotra and Ms. Samridhi Gholap i/b.
Lawkhart Legal, for the Respondent No.7.
Mr. Karl Tamboly i/by. Mr. Ajaz Ahmed Ansari, for Respondent
No.8.
Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) , for SRA, Respondent Nos. 2
to 6.
Mr. Joel Carlos with Ms. K.H. Mastakar, for MCGM, Respondent
No. 9 to 13.
Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, for AGRC, Respondent No.1.
________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Reserved On : 16 January 2024.
Pronounced On : 25 January 2024.
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 :::
Neeta Sawant 2/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC
25 January 2024.
JUDGMENT:
1. This is a typical dispute amongst the slum dwellers/structure occupiers over choice of developer for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Petitioners, who claim to be eligible slum dwellers, are aggrieved by the appointment of Respondent No.7-Aquarock Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Accordingly they have challenged Minutes of the Meeting dated 17 January 2023 selecting Respondent No.7 as the developer for the Project. The Appeal preferred by the Petitioners before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee has been rejected by Order dated 5 June 2023, which is also subject matter of challenge in the present petition. Also challenged is the No-Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and final Annexure-II dated 26 September 2022 issued by the MCGM. Various other consequential and related prayers are also raised in the petition. Petitioners pray that a fresh General Body Meeting for appointment of developer and architect be conducted by giving opportunity to all the structure occupiers to vote in such meeting.
2. Two principal issues that arise in the petition are:
(i) entitlement of 13 structure occupiers who are tenants of MCGM to participate in the voting process as well as their eligibility to be included in Annexure -II and
(ii) manner of service of Notice and conduct of Meeting dated 17 January 2023 for selection of new developer.::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 :::
Neeta Sawant 3/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC
25 January 2024.
3. To answer the issues, a brief narration of facts would be necessary. Land bearing CTS Nos. 2839 and 2839/1 to 13 situated at Village- Malvani, Taluka- Borivali, Mumbai Suburban District is owned by MCGM, in which there are 45 structures. The adjoining land bearing CTS No.2840 is owned by the Central Government, in which there are 11 structures located. Out of the 45 structures located on land belonging to Municipal Corporation, 16 structures are commercial and 29 are residential. Out of those 16 structures, there are 13 Shops located in structures belonging to MCGM and there is one Municipal Chowkey. MCGM has inducted Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 as municipal tenants in 12 out of those 13 shops. It is Petitioners' case that the developer who was previously appointed (Manthan Builders) had submitted Annexure -II including names of Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 (municipal tenants) as occupiers of their respective structures.
4. By order dated 8 January 2020, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) passed Order under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (the Slum Act) terminating the appointment of Manthan Builders and directed conduct of Meeting by the Slum Society under the supervision of Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies (SRA) for appointing a new developer. It appears that in pursuance of the said directions, a meeting was held by the Slum Society on 23 February 2020 in which, Respondent No.7-Aquarock Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was appointed as the developer.
A report to that effect was submitted by the Assistant Registrar.
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 4/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC
25 January 2024.
Petitioners filed Application No. 210 of 2021 before the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) seeking annulment of the General Body Resolution dated 23 February 2020 and sought holding of a fresh General Body Meeting. On 7 January 2022, AGRC passed interim order directing the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, (SRA) to conduct a fresh General Body Meeting of all eligible slum dwellers/members.
5. On 23 August 2022, MCGM issued No Objection Certificate (NOC) for execution of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) on its Plot. In addition to several conditions of payment of premium and allotment of PAP tenements (in capacity as land owner), it also directed that in respect of its 13 shops, the developer shall allot 13 road facing commercial structures and shall also construct a municipal chowkey (in capacity as structure owner). On 26 September 2022, MCGM issued final Annexure-II in which name of Municipal Corporation was recorded in respect of 14 structures instead of recording names of Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33. Petitioners therefore filed Application for amendment before the AGRC seeking to challenge the final Annexure-II. In that amendment application, Petitioners also challenged the NOC issued by MCGM on 23 August 2022.
6. In pursuance of the interim order passed by the AGRC on 7 January 2022, General Body Meeting of the Society was held on 17 January 2023 in presence of the Competent Authority nominated by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, SRA. In the resolution adopted by the Society, Respondent No.7 was again ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 5/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
selected and appointed as Developer and M/s. U.K. Associates was appointed as Architect. In the said Meeting held on 17 January 2023, the Colony Officer of Municipal Corporation participated and voted in respect 14 structures of M.C.G.M. Another set of 14 eligible slum dwellers were present for the meeting. This is how total 15 voters voted in respect of total 29 structures (14 of slum dwellers + 14 of MCGM). All 15 voters voted for appointment of Respondent No.7. It was therefore concluded that out of total 39 eligible structures, 29 eligible structure holders voted in favour of appointment of Respondent No.7 as developer and since percentage of such votes is 75%, the appointment of Respondent No.7 as developer has been finalised. A report to this effect was submitted by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (SRA) to AGRC on 20 January 2023.
7. It appears that in Writ Petition No. 239 of 2023 filed by Respondent No.7 challenging inter-alia the order of status-quo dated 2 December 2022, this Court passed Order dated 2 February 2023 directing AGRC to decide Application No. 210 of 2021 expeditiously. The AGRC proceeded to hear Application No. 210 of 2021 and by Order dated 5 June 2023, has dismissed the same by upholding the Minutes of the Meeting dated 23 February 2020 adopted by the Society appointing Respondent No.7 as Developer.
8. Accordingly, Petitioners have filed the present petition challenging (i)AGRC's Order dated 5 June 2023, (ii)Minutes of the Meeting dated 23 February 2020 appointing Respondent No.7 as the Developer; (iii) MCGM's NOC dated 23 August 2022, (iv) MCGM's ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 6/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
final Annexure-II dated 26 September 2022; (v) proposals submitted by Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for redevelopment of the Plot; (iv) General Body Meeting dated 17 January 2023 and Report dated 20 January 2023 of Assistant Registrar. Petitioners seek conduct of fresh General Body Meeting for appointment of new developer and architect for execution of project and redevelopment of the slum.
9. Mr. Kamdar, the learned senior advocate appearing for Petitioners would submit that the Order passed by the AGRC is ex- facie illegal. That AGRC has not decided most the prayers of Petitioners introduced by way of amendment relating to challenge to MCGM's NOC and revised final Annexure-II. That the Order passed by the AGRC which runs into 21 pages devotes only single paragraph for upholding the right of MCGM to vote in respect of its structures. That various submissions raised by Petitioners have not been considered by AGRC while passing the cryptic order.
10. Mr. Kamdar would further submit that the principal issue involved in the petition is about entitlement of Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 to participate and vote in the General Body Meeting. That Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 are all occupiers of structures and in their capacity as occupiers, they are entitled to participate in the General Body Meeting and cast their vote for selection of a developer. He would rely upon definition of the term 'occupier' under Section 2(e) of the Slum Act and contend that even a trespasser is covered under definition of occupier. He would submit that the project in question is being implemented under the provisions of Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 7/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
Mumbai, 2034 (DCR). That therefore interpretation of the word 'occupier' must be as per Regulation 33(10). That under DCR 33(10)(I)(b) only actual occupier of the structure becomes eligible and that the structure owner does not have any right in the redevelopment scheme. That therefore the so-called arrangement between the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 and MCGM, cannot affect their rights under the Regulation 33(10) as occupiers of the structure. That the meeting of the General Body held without participation of Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 is therefore ab-initio void. That the Municipal Corporation may be the owner of the structure, however, Regulation 33(10) vests right in occupier to get benefits out of redevelopment scheme. That therefore the names of Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 were correctly incorporated in Annexure-II prepared by the previous developer. That in the revised Annexure- II, prepared by MCGM, names of Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 are illegally excluded and name of MCGM as owner of the structure has been erroneously incorporated. This is against the statutory scheme of Regulation 33(10) and of Slum Act.
11. Mr. Kamdar would further submit that on account of name of MCGM being reflected in final Annexure-II in respect of the 13 shops, no Notices of General Body Meeting held on 17 January 2023 was given to Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and
33. Additionally, no Notice was issued to 8 eligible slum dwellers whose eligibility is not even under dispute. That notices meant for those 8 eligible slum dwellers were illegally handed over by the Assistant Registrar to Chief Promoter of society. That in absence of ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 8/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33, the Colony Officer of MCGM, illegally participated and voted on behalf of the 13 structure occupiers. That therefore the meeting conducted on 17 January 2023 and the resolution adopted therein are ex-facie illegal. He would submit that out of the 13 municipal shops, 12 shop occupiers are opposing to appointment of Respondent No. 7 as Developer and have filed the present petition. Additional 8 eligible slum dwellers have also filed the present petition. This is how total 20 structure occupiers out of the 39 structures are opposing to the appointment of Respondent No.7 as Developer. That 12 + 8 = 20 out of 39 structures constitute 51% votes. Thus, the appointment of Respondent No.7 does not conform to the provisions of Regulation 33(10)(VI)(1.15) requiring consent of 51% eligible hutment dwellers. Mr. Kamdar would therefore submit that the impugned Order of AGRC, MCGM's NOC, final Annexure-II, as well as Resolution adopted in the General Body Meeting of 17 January 2023 are required to be set aside with a direction to conduct fresh General Body Meeting by permitting Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 to participate and vote while adopting resolution for appointment of new developer.
12. Mr. Godbole, the learned senior advocate appearing for Respondent No.7-developer would oppose the petition and support the order passed by the AGRC. Inviting my attention to the cause title of the petition, Mr. Godbole would submit that only 8 eligible slum dwellers have filed the present petition who are Petitioner Nos. 8, 19, 15, 16, 18, 19, 24 and 26. That rest of the 26 Petitioners are not eligible and their names are not reflected in Annexure-II. Out of ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 9/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
the said 26 Petitioners, Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 are those who are tenants of MCGM. Rest of the Petitioners have no semblance of right to decide appointment of developer as they either do not occupy any structure or they are not eligible as of now. That such faulty petition cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed.
13. Mr. Godbole would further submit that the land on which project is implemented is owned by MCGM who has right to issue NOC for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 are not protected occupiers and are mere tenants of MCGM. They do not hold photopasses. They pay monthly rent to MCGM. That DCPR 33(10)(1)(b) refers to provisions of Chapter-IB of the Slum Act. That under the provisions of Section 3(X) of the Slum Act, "protected occupier" means an occupier of a dwelling structure who holds a photopass. That since Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 do not hold a photopass, they cannot be treated as 'protected occupiers' within the meaning of the Slum Act or under Regulation 33(10). That Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 would ultimately become tenants of the Municipal Corporation in the reconstructed structures. That Agreements for Permanent Alternate Accommodations (PAAA) will be executed with the Municipal Corporation and not with Petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33. That therefore they do not have any locus-standi to file the petition.
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 10/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC
25 January 2024.
14. Mr. Godbole would further submit that the meeting of the society has been validly conducted. That in respect of 8 eligible slum dwellers, Notices were published on the notice board in the society premises. That municipal structures were represented by the Colony Officer of MCGM. He would invite my attention to the NOC issued by MCGM on 23 August 2022, under which specific condition is incorporated for handing over 13 municipal commercial structures of 120 square feet each in the rehabilitated building to MCGM's Estate Officer, who is supposed to allot those commercial structures to the eligible occupants. That MCGM's NOC for execution of the project is specifically subject to the above conditions. He would invite my attention to the final Annexure-II issued on 26 September 2022, under which MCGM's name is reflected in respect of the 14 structures including that of 13 municipal tenants. That therefore the municipal tenants do not have any right to choose the developer for execution of the project. Lastly, Mr. Godbole would submit that 19 structure occupiers have already handed over possession of their respective structures and the project is unnecessarily held up on account of baseless allegations raised by Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33. That therefore this Court would be loathe in interfering in the decision of the AGRC or in the general body resolution adopted by the Society which, would further derail the execution of the project.
15. Mr. Tamboly, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.8-Society would also oppose the petition adopting the submissions canvassed by Mr. Godbole. Additionally, he would submit that since the AGRC's Order is tested in exercise of writ ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 11/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
jurisdiction of this Court, Petitioners must make out a case of perversity in the impugned Orders. That in the entire petition, it is nowhere demonstrated as to how the impugned Orders are perverse. Mr. Tamboly would further submit that the issue of entitlement of Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33 to be included in Annexure-II cannot be decided directly by AGRC or by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. That the project has been stalled since 2010. He would invite my attention to photographs taken at the site to demonstrate that the municipal tenants are continuing to operate their commercial shops at the cost of genuine slum dwellers whose structures are either dilapidated or demolished.
16. Mr. Aradwad (Reddy), the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6-SRA, would support the Order passed by the AGRC as well as the Report submitted by the Assistant Registrar in respect of General Body Meeting held on 17 January 2023. He would submit that the MCGM's Colony Officer was rightly invited for the meeting as name of MCGM is reflected in the final Annexure-II. Inviting my attention to Regulation 33(10) (VI) (1.12), he would submit that on sanction of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, rights of imla malik, municipal tenants or other tenants stand automatically terminated in respect of the sanctioned scheme. Therefore, the municipal tenants (Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4 to 7, 12,14, 17, 23, 25 and 33) have no semblance of right in the present project.
17. Mr. Carlos the learned counsel appearing for MCGM (Respondent Nos.9 to 13) would also oppose the petition. Inviting my attention to the NOC issued by MCGM, he would submit that being the owner, not only of the land but also of Municipal Market, ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 12/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
the MCGM has imposed various conditions of payment of premium as well as grant of constructed areas as a pre-condition for grant of NOC. That the factum of imposition of said conditions by MCGM would undoubtedly show that it is MCGM alone who can get possession of the 13 commercial structures in lieu of existing 13 shops. That after MCGM gets ownership and possession of such 13 commercial structures, allotments in respect thereof would be made to the existing municipal tenants. That the said municipal tenants are not slum dwellers. He would pray for dismissal of the petition.
18. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my consideration.
19. The principal issue involved in the present petition is about the correctness of decision taken by the General Body of the Respondent No.8-Society in appointing Respondent No.7 as the developer to carry out the project of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The appointment of Respondent No.7 as developer has taken place through the Meetings of the General Body of Respondent No.8- Society viz. (i) Meeting held on 23 February 2020, which became subject matter of challenge in Application No. 210 of 2021 filed before the AGRC and (ii) Meeting held on 17 January 2023 in pursuance of the interim order passed by the AGRC on 7 January 2022. In both the meetings, Respondent No.8-Society has resolved to appoint Respondent No.7 as the developer to carry out the project. Petitioners are aggrieved by the Society's decision to select and appoint Respondent No.7 as the developer.
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 13/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC
25 January 2024.
20. The principal cause of action for filing the present petition arose on account of passing of Order dated 5 June 2023 by AGRC in Application No. 210 of 2021. It would therefore be necessary to reproduce the prayers made by the Petitioners in Application No. 210 of 2021 filed before the AGRC which reads thus :
(a) The Hon'ble Apex Grievance Redressal Committee be pleased to (i) cancel the minutes of meeting dated 23.02.2020 submitted by the Chief promoter of the Society, the respondent no.7 and the developer for appointment of M/S Acquarock Buildcon Pvt Ltd and the Architect Utekars' design, (ii) cancel the letter/report dated 15.09.2020 sent by Respondent no.4 to the respondent no.5
(iii) and further proceeding/action taken thereupon.
(b) The Hon'ble Apex Grievance Redressal Committee be pleased to record/set aside/quash the proposal dated 19 March, 2021 and or any other proposal submitted by the Respondent no.6 and 7 in respect of development of the plot of land bearing CTS No. 2839 and CTS no. 2839/1 to 13 of Village-Malvani, Taluka-Borivali, MSD, Mumbai owned by Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai situated at Abdul Hamid Chowk Marve road, Malvani Gate No. 1, Opposite Fire Brigade, Malad (West), Mumbai-
400095.
(c) The Hon'ble Apex Grievance Redressal Committee be pleased to direct the Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society, SRA, Mumbai to conduct a fresh General Body Meeting for appointment of new developer and new architect in respect of development of the plot of land bearing CTS No. 2839 and CTS no. 2839/1 to 13 of Village-Malvani, Taluka-Borivali, MSD, Mumbai owned by Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai situated at Abdul Hamid Chowk Marve road, Malvani Gate No. 1, Opposite Fire Malad (West), Mumbai-400095.
(d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present application, the Hon'ble Apex Grievance Redressal Committee be pleased to restrain the Respondent No.1 to 5 from granting any kind of permission to proceed with the development of the said plot of land bearing CTS No. 2839 and CTS no. 2839/1 to 13 of Village- Malvani, Taluka-Borivali, MSD, Mumbai owned by Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai situated at Abdul Hamid Chowk ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 14/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
Marve road, Malvani Gate No. 1, Opposite Fire Brigade, Malad (West), Mumbai-400095.
(e) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present application, the Hon'ble Apex Grievance Redressal Committee be pleased to restrain the Respondent no.6 and 7 from making further process and or carrying out any development activities in the development of the said plot of land bearing CTS No. 2839 and CTS no. 2839/1 to 13 of Village-Malvani, Taluka-Borivali, MSD, Mumbai owned by Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai situated at Abdul Hamid Chowk Marve road, Malvani Gate No. 1, Opposite Fire Brigade, Malad (West), Mumbai-400095
(f) That ad-interim and interim relief in terms Clause(d) and (e) be granted
(g) The cost of the present Application-be provided for;
(h) That such other and further reliefs be granted to the Applicant as this Hon'ble forum deem fit and proper.
21. Thus, in Application No. 210 of 2021 filed by the Petitioners before the AGRC, essential challenge was to the minutes of Meeting dated 23 February 2020 and copy of letter/report dated 15 September 2020 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, (SRA) to the Executive Engineer of SRA forwarding the minutes of the General Body Meeting of the Society held on 23 February 2020. The proposal dated 19 March 2021 sent by the Developer for execution of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme was also challenged before the AGRC. Petitioners prayed for conduct of fresh general body meeting for appointment of new developer before the AGRC. This was the limited remit before the AGRC. However, it appears that on account of certain events that took place during pendency of Application No. 210 of 2021 before the AGRC, an application for amendment was filed by the Petitioners on 22 ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 15/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
November 2022. By that application, following prayers were sought to be added in Application No. 210 of 2021 :
(b-i) That the Hon'ble Committee be pleased to quash and set aside the NOC issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai duly signed by S.E. (Estates) Shri Prakash Sonawane, A.E. (IMP) - III Shri Lalitkumar Shah and A.C. (Estates) Shri Prashant Gaikwad and/or any other NOC issued by any other officer of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai including the Colony Officer, P/North Ward and/or the letter dated 20th May 2022 recorded by Assistant Engineer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, to the Assistant Commissioner, P/North Ward, Mumbai and/or any other officer/s of SRA and the final Annexure-II dated 26 th September 2022 issued by Assistant Municipal Commissioner, P/North Ward of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
(b-ii) That this Hon'ble Committee be pleased to set aside all permissions granted/actions taken by the SRA or any other authority subsequent to the interim Order dated 07/01/2022 passed by this Hon'ble Committee.
22. It is Mr. Kamdar's contention that the Application for amendment filed on 22 November 2022 has been allowed by the AGRC and in that regard reliance is placed on para-66 of AGRC's order, which reads thus :
66. Thereafter, Applicants filed the Amendment) Application before this Committee requesting this Authority to allow them to amend the present Application, as after passing of the order dated 07.01.2022, there were some consequential changes which needed to be brought out before this Committee and which are necessary to considered by this Committee, while passing final order.
Pursuant to said Application, same is allowed.
23. Thus by amending the application, Petitioners also set up a challenge to the NOC issued by MCGM on 23 August 2022 and final Annexure-II dated 26 September 2022 and all permissions granted/actions taken by the SRA subsequent to the interim order dated 7 January 2022.
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 16/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC
25 January 2024.
24. Thus, perusal of the prayers in Application No. 210 of 2021 would indicate that what was challenged before the AGRC was:
i) Minutes of the General Body Meeting dated 23 December 2020,
ii) Report dated 15 September 2020 of Assistant Registrar,
iii) Proposal dated 19 March 2021 submitted by Respondent No.7,
iv) NOC issued by the MCGM,
v) final Annexure-II dated 26 September 2022 of MCGM and
vi) all permissions and actions of SRA subsequent to the interim order dated 7 January 2022.
25. As observed above, in pursuance of the interim order of the AGRC dated 7 January 2022, Respondent No.8 held a fresh General Body Meeting on 17 January 2023 and once again decided to appoint Respondent No.7 as the Developer. It appears that the General Body Resolution adopted in Meeting held on 17 January 2023 was not specifically challenged by Petitioners before the AGRC. Minutes of the said Resolution adopted in Meeting dated 17 January 2023 were forwarded by the Assistant Registrar vide Report dated 20 January 2023. Since 'all permissions granted/actions taken by SRA' subsequent to interim order dated 7 January 2022 were subject matter of challenge before the AGRC through amended prayer, one may well argue that even the Resolution adopted in the General Body Meeting held on 17 January 2023 forwarded vide Assistant Registrar's Report dated 20 February 2023 also became subject matter of challenge before the AGRC. The order passed by the AGRC indicates that the factum of holding General Body Meeting on 17 January 2023 and Assistant Registrar's Report dated ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 17/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
20 February 2023 is taken note of by AGRC. It also appears that correctness of the General Body Meeting held on 17 January 2023 and denial of opportunity to municipal tenants to vote therein has also been examined by AGRC. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that AGRC has examined correctness of the General Body Meeting held on 17 January 2023 as well. However, it appears that even though the correctness of the General Body Meeting held on 17 January 2023 is examined by AGRC and findings in that regard are recorded in the operative portion of the Order, the AGRC Order only upholds the minutes of the earlier Meeting held on 23 February 2020. Be that as it may. Since the AGRC has taken into consideration the submissions canvassed by the Petitioners about correctness of General Body Meeting held on 17 January 2023 and since findings thereon are recorded by AGRC, the AGRC's order need not disturbed only on the ground that the operative portion of the order does not record any direction with regard to the General Body Meeting held on 17 January 2023. I accordingly proceed to examine the merits of the Order dated 5 June 2023 passed by the AGRC.
26. Before proceeding further, it would be necessary to first examine the issue of locus-standi of Petitioners to file the present petition. Mr. Godbole has raised serious objections about the locus of all Petitioners except 8 eligible slum dwellers to maintain the petition. The composition of 34 Petitioners before this Court as indicated in the Affidavit of Respondent No.7 is as under :
STATUS OF PETITIONERS Petitioner Nos. Total Status of Petitioners in ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 18/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
the SR Scheme 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 & 33 12 Tenants of the MCGM 3,10, 13, 22, 34. 05 No structure 30, 31 & 32 03 Not in Annexure II 11, 20, 21, 27, 28 & 29. 06 Ineligible (Apatra) in final Annecure-II and/or Not produce any documents to the Competent Authority for eligibility.
8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 24, 26 08 Eligible (Patra) in final Annexure-II
27. Thus out of the 34 Petitioners, 12 are municipal tenants and 8 are eligible slum dwellers as per the final Annexure-II. The rest of the Petitioners either do not have any structure or their names do not reflect in Annexure-II or who are yet to establish their eligibility for inclusion in Annexure-II. There can be no doubt to the position that the said 5 + 3 + 6 = 14 Petitioners who do not have any structures or whose names do not reflect in Annexure-II or who are yet to establish their eligibility, did not have right to participate or vote in the general body meetings of the Society held on 23 February 2020 and 17 January 2023. In my view, therefore Petitioner Nos.3, 10, 13, 22, 34, 30, 31, 32, 11, 20, 21, 27, 28 and 29 do not have locus-standi to challenge the Resolution adopted by general body the Society for selecting Respondent No.7 as the developer.
28. The next issue, which is the hotbed of controversy between the parties, is about entitlement of 12 Petitioners (Petitioners No.1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33) who are municipal tenants to participate and vote in the General Body ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 19/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
Meeting of the Society for selection of the developer. As observed above, there are total 14 structures belonging to MCGM on the concerned plot which are loosely referred to as the 'Municipal Market'. The said 14 structures include 13 Shops and one Municipal Chowky. In the final Annexure-II, name of MCGM is included in respect of 14 structures. Out of the said 13 shops, 12 occupiers thereof are Petitioners in the present petition. They contend that since they are occupiers of their respective structures, they are entitled to participate in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The issue of entitlement of 12 Petitioners, who are municipal tenants, to participate in the decision-making process for selection of developer is required to be determined as per the provisions of the DCR and the Slum Act. Regulation 33(10) of DCPR 2034 deals with redevelopment for rehabilitation of the slum dwellers. Clause I of DCPR 33(10) provides for eligibility for rehabilitation scheme and reads thus :
33(10) Redevelopment for Rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers:
I Eligibility for redevelopment scheme:
(a) A person eligible for redevelopment scheme shall mean a protected occupier as defined in Chapter IB of Maharashtra Slums Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 as amended time to time, hereinafter referred to as Slum Act and orders issued there under.
(b) Subject to the foregoing provisions, only the actual occupants of the hutment shall be held eligible, and the so-called structure-
owner other than the actual occupant if any, even if his name is shown in the electoral roll for the structure, shall have no right whatsoever to the reconstructed tenement against that structure.
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 20/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC
25 January 2024.
29. Thus, under DCPR 33(10)(I)(a), a protected occupier as defined under Chapter-IB of Slum Act, becomes eligible for redevelopment scheme. Before I turn to examine the provisions of the Slum Act, it would be necessary to take note of Clause-b of Regulation 33(10)(I). Mr. Kamdar has strenuously contended that ownership by MCGM in respect of the structures of the 12 Petitioners does not confer any right on MCGM in respect of the reconstructed tenements against the said structures. On the contrary, it is Mr. Godbole's contention that only a protected occupier as defined under Chapter-IB of the Slum Act can become eligible for redevelopment Scheme. Chapter-IB of the Slum Act deals with protected occupiers, their relocation and rehabilitation. Section 3X of the Slum Act reads thus :
3X. Definitions In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) "dwelling structure" means a structure used as dwelling or otherwise and include outhouse, shed, hut, other enclosure or structure attached to the earth including community economic activity area within or adjoining to it, whether of bricks, masonry, wood, mud, metal or any other material whatsoever;
(b) "photo-pass" means an identity card-cum-certificate issued by the Government in the prescribed format under section 3Y, and shall include such other document or documents declared by Government, by order issued in this behalf, to be equivalent of photo-pass for the purposes of this Chapter;
(c) "protected occupier" means an occupier of a dwelling structure who holds a photo-pass;
(d) "scheme" means any arrangement or plan prepared and declared by the State Government for the protection, relocation and rehabilitation of the protected occupiers.::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 :::
Neeta Sawant 21/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC
25 January 2024.
30. Thus, the definition of 'protected occupier' under Section 3(X) of the Slum Act, only an occupier of dwelling structure who holds a photopass can become a protected occupier. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the municipal tenants are not issued photopasses. Mr. Godbole, has therefore contended that the said municipal tenants cannot fit into the definition of protected tenants within the meaning of Regulation 33(10)(I) of DCPR 2034 and Section 3(X) of the Slum Act. To counter this submissions, Mr. Kamdar has contended that issuance of photopass alone does not determine eligibility of an occupier to participate in Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. According to Mr. Kamdar, in respect of the census structures, photopasses are not issued but the structure occupiers are still held eligible to participate in the redevelopment scheme under Regulation 33(10).
31. Mr. Kamdar has relied upon definition of the term 'occupier' under Section 2 (e) of Slum Act, which reads thus:
(e) "Occupier" includes,
(i) any person who for the time being is paying or is liable to pay to the owner the rent or any portion of the rent of the land or building in respect of which such rent is paid or is payable;
(ii) an owner in occupation of, or otherwise using, his land or build-
ing;
(iii) a rent-free tenant of any land or building;
(iv) a licensee in occupation of any land or building; and
(v) any person who is liable to pay to the owner damages for the use and occupation of any land or building;
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 22/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC
25 January 2024.
32. Based on definition of the term 'occupier' it is sought to be suggested that the municipal tenants are occupiers within the definition under Section 2(e). However it appears that the terms 'occupier' and 'protected occupier' are separately defined under the Slum Act. The fact that the term 'protected occupier' is separately defined in Section 3-X under Chapter 1-B despite availability of definition of the term 'occupier' means that the Legislature intended to treat a occupier differently from a protected occupier. This is possibly because Chapter 1-B governs relocation and rehabilitation of protected occupiers. The definition of the term 'protected occupier' has relevance only for application of Chapter 1-B, whereas definition of the term 'occupier' is relevant for other provisions of the Act. Regulation 33(10) refers to Chapter 1-B. Therefore, in my view definition of the term 'protected occupier' under Section 3X of Chapter 1-B would be relevant for determining the eligibility of the municipal tenants to receive benefits of the slum rehabilitation scheme.
33. Mr. Kamdar has relied on judgment of the Apex Court in Laxmi Ram Pawar1 holding that even a trespasser becomes an occupier within the meaning of Section 2(e) of Slum Act. In my view, the issue before the Apex Court was altogether different. The case did not involve entitlement of the occupier to receive benefits of slum rehabilitation scheme. The issue involved before the Apex Court was about necessity of obtaining written permission of competent authority under Section 22(1)(a) of the Slum Act for seeking such occupier's eviction. For deciding that issue, the Apex 1 Laxmi Ram Pawar Vs. Sitabai Balu Dhotre & Anr. Civil Appeal No.2789 of 2005 decided on 1 December 2010 ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 23/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
Court held that even a trespasser would be included in definition of the term 'occupier' for the purpose of application of provisions of Section 22(1)(a) of the Slum Act. The Apex Court has not interpreted definition of the term 'protected occupier' under Section 3(X) of the Act for determining eligibility for rehabilitation under Chapter 1-B or under Regulation 33(10) of DCR. Similar is the position about judgment of this Court in Taj Mohamed Yakub2, wherein again, the Division Bench of this Court held that prior permission for seeking eviction of trespasser fitting into the definition of the term 'occupier' was necessary. Therefore in my view, the judgment of the Apex Court in Laxmi Ram Pawar and of this Court in Taj Mohamed Yakub would have no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In fact considering the limited remit of inquiry involved in the present Petition, which is about correctness of choice made by the Society about the developer, it is not necessary to go into the larger issue of eligibility of municipal tenants for inclusion of their names in Annexure-II.
34. In my view, the limited issue that arises for consideration in the present case is about correctness of the Resolution adopted by the Society for appointment of Respondent No.7 as the Developer. As observed above, names of the municipal tenants have not been included in the final Annexure-II prepared by MCGM and MCGM's name is reflected in respect of the 14 structures, 13 out of which are occupied by the municipal tenants. In this case, MCGM is not just the landlord but also owns 14 structures. It is at Society's request that MCGM has agreed to 2 Taj Mohamed Yusuf Vs. Abdul Gani Bhikan MANU/MH/0976/1990 ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 24/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
participate in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by imposing various conditions. It would be necessary to reproduce some of the conditions imposed by MCGM in NOC dated 23 August 2022 which read thus :
1. The Developer shall obtain precise demarcation of plot bearing CTS.No. 1498 (Pt.) of Village Malvani from City Survey Officer and demarcation of existing road from roads department of BMC.
2. That the developer shall pay 125% of ASR prevailing at the time of issue of LOI for 131.58 sq.mt. vacant plot of existing amenity of Municipal chowky and 25% land premium in lieu of balance BMC land adm. 1267.7 sq.mt. and transfer the said land premium to BMC within 30 days as per clause 1.11 of 33(10) of DCPR 2034.
3. The Developer shall handover at least 60 nos. of tenements of carpet area 27.88 Mtr. to BMC for allotment to Project Affected Persons (PAPs), as per the clarification received from UDD, Government of Maharashtra on 17/03/2020 under No. TPB-
4319/337/C. No. 178/2019/UD - 11 to BMC. In case any hutment dweller is held not eligible finally by A.C. (P/North), the structure so constructed shall also be handed over to BMC.
4. The Developer shall construct and handover Municipal chowky 483.84 sq.mt 230.30 sq.mt i.e. full potential of Municipal chowky amenity plot + 20% of balance plot 1267.7 sq.mt (i.e. 1498 sq.mt. - 230.30 sq.mt), preferably in a separate building/wing within the scheme plot with separate access, fronting on Municipal road. The design of the Municipal chowky shall be got approved from Municipal Architect/Concerned user i.e. P/ North Ward.
8. The Developer shall provide rehabilitation to the 8 structures situated outside Municipal plot which are proposed to be Included in the S.R. Scheme, at his cost.
9. The Developer shall construct and handover 13 Municipal commercial structures of 120 Sq. ft. each in rehab / composite bullding fronting on Municipal road on ground floor only to Estates Officer P/North Ward who will allot the 6 commercial structures to eligible occupants and allot remaining 7 structures as per policy of Estates Department.
10. SRA shall accommodate all the eligible, hutment dwellers existing on CTS no. 2839 (Pt.) of Village Malvani in PAP tenements which will be generated in the said S.R. scheme as per the provisions of DCPR 2034, including the slums existed on ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 25/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
01/01/2011, the cost of such tenements shall be paid to BMC before parting the possession of PAP tenements to all such tenements existed between 02/01/2000 to 01/01/2011, as per the provisions of DCPR 2034 and G.R. dtd. 16/05/2018.
11. By considering eligible slum dwellers the PAP generated at this stage are 85 nos. However, SRA shall handover the remaining PAP to BMC after final decision of competent authority for eligibility. Accordingly the slum dwellers as per 33(10) clause 3.12 (C) of DCPR - 2034 i.e. non eligible slum dwellers from 01/01/2000 to 01/01/2011 are protected by payment of construction plus infrastructure cost.
35. Perusal of the above conditions imposed by MCGM in NOC dated 23 August 2022 would indicate that MCGM has made it mandatory to pay premium at the rate of 125% of actual schedule of rates (ASR) in respect of vacant plot admeasuring 131.58 sq.mtrs and further premium of 25% in respect of land admeasuring 1267.7 sq.mtrs. MCGM has mandated the Developer to hand over 60 tenements for Project Affected Persons (PAP). The Developer is supposed to construct and handover Municipal Chowky admeasuring area of 483.84 sq.mtrs. Additionally, the Developer is supposed to construct and handover 13 municipal commercial structures of 120 sq.ft each in rehab/composite building fronting the municipal road on ground floor of MCGM. The NOC provides that after such 13 commercial structures are handed over, MCGM would allot 6 commercial structures to the eligible occupants and 7 structures as per the policy of the Estate Department. It appears that names of some of the shop occupiers are yet to be transferred in the municipal records and therefore as of now the allotment is decided to be granted in favour of only 6 tenants as of now.
36. Plain reading of the NOC dated 23 August 2022 would indicate that the conditions for payment of premium and handing ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 26/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
over 60 PAP tenements are imposed in capacity of MCGM as land owners. However, the condition for construction and handing over of Municipal Chowky admeasuring 483.84 sq.mtrs and 13 commercial structures admeasuring 120 sq.mt are in MCGM's capacity as the structure owner. As observed above, at present MCGM owns total 14 structures on the plot comprising one Municipal Chowky and 13 Shops. Thus, the Municipal Corporation has put condition of handing over 14 reconstructed structures in lieu of its 14 structures, which would be demolished for implementing the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the plot.
37. On the other hand, it is the contention of the 12 Petitioners, who are Municipal tenants, that since they actually occupy the structures, they must get possession of reconstructed tenements. There is no dispute to the position that the 12 Petitioners are tenants of the Municipal Corporation who pay premium to MCGM for occupying their respective structures. Admittedly, they do not hold any photopass. For the purpose of determining the limited question of correctness of the decision adopted by the General Body of the Society to choose the Developer, in my view, no case is made out by the said 12 Petitioners, who are Municipal Tenants, to question the correctness of the said decision. The 12 Petitioners (Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 14, 17, 23, 25 and 33) will have to first get their eligibility decided for being included in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
38. In the Annexure-II prepared by MCGM on 26 September 2022, the names of the said 12 Petitioners are not ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 27/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
reflected. They will have to adopt appropriate proceedings to challenge the said Annexure-II. It is sought to be contended that Annexure-II was challenged in Application No. 210 of 2021 by amending the same. Similarly, it is contended that even the NOC issued by MCGM was challenged before AGRC by amending the application. The issue of eligibility of the municipal tenants for being included in Annexure-II could not have been raised directly before the AGRC. There appears to be separate mechanism for deciding the eligibility of slum dwellers by filing proceedings before the Deputy Collector, appeal before Additional Collector and finally appeal before the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC). In fact the AGRC does not have jurisdiction to decide the issue of eligibility of slum dwellers for inclusion in Annexure-II. The hierarchical jurisdiction in that regard is vested with Dy. Collector, Addl. Collector and GRC. Even otherwise, the principal issue raised before the AGRC was about correctness of the General Body Meeting held by the Society and Resolutions adopted therein. Petitioners cannot be permitted to raise a challenge to conditions of NOC and/or final Annexure-II by way of a sidewind in Application No. 210 of 2021. They will have to initiate substantive and independent proceedings to challenge MCGM's NOC as well as final Annexure-II. The cause- title of Application No. 210 of 2021 indicates that MCGM was not even impleaded as a party to that application. While challenge was sought to be raised to MCGM's NOC and Annexure-II by way of amendment, it appears that MCGM was not added as party to the proceedings before the AGRC. As observed above, even if MCGM was to be impleaded before the AGRC, it is highly debatable as to whether AGRC would exercise any jurisdiction to decide correctness ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 28/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
of the conditions imposed by MCGM while granting the NOC dated 23 August 2022. In my view, therefore the Petitioners could not have raised challenge to the NOC dated 23 August 2022 or the final Annexure-II dated 26 September 2022 in their Application No. 210 of 2021, the ambit of which was essentially restricted to the manner of conduct of General Body Meetings of Society and Resolutions adopted by it for appointing Respondent No.7 as the Developer.
39. In my view therefore, no serious flaw can be found with the Colony Officer of MCGM participating in the General Body Meeting held on 17 January 2023 and thereby voting on behalf of MCGM. As on 17 January 2023, Annexure-II reflected name of MCGM against all 14 structures. Since names of the 12 Petitioners, who are Municipal Tenants, are not reflected in Annexure-II, they did not have any right to participate or vote in the meeting of the Society. As of now, the limited issue before the AGRC and in the present petition is about the choice of Developer whereas the entitlement of 12 Petitioners who are Municipal Tenants to participate in Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and to receive reconstructed tenements is a much larger issue which could not be decided either by AGRC in Application No. 210 of 2021 or by this Court in the present petition. Accordingly, the said 12 Petitioners, who are Municipal Tenants, will have to be agitate separately their alleged right to participate in Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by inclusion of their names in final Annexure-II and for receiving the reconstructed tenements. All issues in that regard are kept open.
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 29/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC
25 January 2024.
40. I therefore conclude that the occupants of the 13 structures of Municipal Tenants which are occupied by Municipal Tenants (12 of whom are Petitioners) did not have any right to participate or to vote in the meeting of the Society to choose Developer or Architect for execution of the project. This concludes the main and the principal issue raised in the petition.
41. I have already held that rest of the Petitioners (excluding the 8 eligible slum dwellers) do not have any locus to file the petition. So now what remains is to examine the grievance of the 8 eligible slum dwellers who are Petitioner Nos. 8, 9, 15, 16, 18, 19, 24 and 26. The complaint of the said 8 slum dwellers about non- receipt of Notice of Meeting held on 17 January 2023 cannot be accepted. The Society in its Affidavit has raised following averments :
n. I say that during the ongoing developmental process, the Petitioners with the malafide intention, filed an Application bearing no. 210 of 2022, before the Hon'ble Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) wherein the Hon'ble AGRC was pleased to direct vide order dated 07th January, 2022 and 02nd December, 2022 to conduct a fresh General Body Meeting. Hereto, annexed and marked as Exhibit-I is the copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble AGRC on 07th January, 2022 and 02nd December, 2022.
o. Accordingly, in due compliance of the said orders passed by the Hon'ble AGRC, notice for scheduling a fresh General Body Meeting on 17th January 2023, issued by SRA was duly circulated via personal service on 12/12/2022 and was also published as a public notice in the local Newspaper. The copy of the said notice issued by SRA was also duly pasted on the society's notice board. Hereto, annexed and marked as Exhibit - J (Colly.) is the copy of the notice dated 12/12/2022 issued by SRA along with the photograph of the notice board of the society showcasing the notice pasted.::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 :::
Neeta Sawant 30/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC
25 January 2024.
p. I say that few of the eligible members refused the acceptance of personal service from the SRA authority, hence, the SRA authority was pleased to intimate us to effectuate a private service upon those members who refused to accept the service.
q. After effectuating all the aforesaid compliances, the fresh general body meeting was duly convened on 17 th January 2023 under the supervision of the Ld. SRA officer as per the directions of the Hon'ble AGRC dated 02nd December 2022.
42. Additionally, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, SRA in her Affidavit as stated as under :
13. I say that as far as the notice of General Body Meeting dated 17.01.2023 is concerned, the Co-operative Officer of SRA gave notices to the Chief Promotor and other promoters of Trishul CHS (Proposed) i.e. the society of the slum dwellers with directions to intimate about the scheduled General Body meeting to all the members of the society as well as the Colony Officer of the MCGM and the notices of the said meeting were sent to all the occupants of all the structures except 14 structures owned by MCGM and in respect of those 14 structures of MCGM, the notice was sent to the Colony Officer of the MCGM. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-R/4 is a copy of one of the notices issued by the SRA regarding General Body Meeting on 17.01.2023.
43. Mr. Tamboly has also invited my attention to the photographs showing display of Notice on the notice board.
Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention raised by the 8 eligible Petitioners that they were not aware about holding of Meeting on 17 January 2023.
44. I have also gone through the photographs of the site placed on record and it is seen that the structures as of now are in extremely dangerous condition. It is in the interest of the slum ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 31/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
dwellers as well as the eligible Petitioners that the rehabilitation project is executed in an expeditious manner so as to prevent any untoward incident. Mr. Tamboly has raised a contention that the Municipal Tenants operate shops on road front and are actually interested in delaying the project. I do not wish to delve deeper into these allegations. Considering the condition of the slum structures, it lies in the interest of all that the same is taken up for redevelopment in an expeditious manner. Parties have fought lengthy litigation on the issue of choice of Developer and now time has come to give a quietus to the issue, which cannot be kept pending till each and every occupant establishes his/her eligibility.
45. In my view, therefore no serious infirmity can be traced in choosing Respondent No.7-Developer for execution of the Slum Rehabilitation Project. So far as the other conditions of the MCGM incorporated in MCGM's NOC dated 23 August 2022 and non- inclusion of Municipal Tenants are concerned, parties will be at liberty to adopt remedies about the said issues independently. For that purpose, it is not necessary to postpone the issue of choice of Developer made by Society for execution of rehabilitation project.
46. After considering the overall conspectus of the case, I do not find any valid reason to interfere in the order passed by the AGRC and various Resolutions adopted by the Society in the Meetings held on 23 February 2020 and 17 January 2023 for choosing Respondent No.7 as the developer. To that extent, the Writ Petition must fail. Those Petitioners, who are Municipal Tenants, would however be at liberty to agitate the conditions incorporated in MCGM's NOC dated 23 August 2022 as well as final ::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 ::: Neeta Sawant 32/32 WPL-16593-2023-FC 25 January 2024.
Annexure-II dated 26 September 2022 before the appropriate forum. All contentions of the parties in that regard are kept open.
47. With the above observations, Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no orders as to costs.
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
48. After the judgment is pronounced, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners seeks extension of ad-interim order passed by this Court on 11 August 2023. The request is opposed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.7 and 8. Considering the fact that this Court decided the issue of correctness of Resolution passed by the Society for selecting the Developer and Architect and also the fact that the issue of eligibility of Municipal Tenants is left open to be agitated before the appropriate forum, it is not necessary to held up the redevelopment project any further. In that view of the matter, the request to continue the interim order is rejected.
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
::: Uploaded on - 25/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 19/02/2024 20:39:27 :::