Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"I say that a general scrutiny of the said complaint primarily suggested violation of provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act" hence on 03.06.2016, Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai forwarded said complaint to the Director General of police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Mumbai for further necessary action. (emphasis supplied) Rane 19/51 PIL-28-2017 Mr. Manere DCP, further stated, that, in the year 2011, on the basis of the complaint received from MHADA, Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai, twenty-nine First Information Reports registered against the developers, who had willfully failed to handover part of developed property to MHADA, as required under DC Rules 33(7). He also states, in those cases, final reports have been filed and no evidence has been found disclosing involvement of MHADA Officials in any of those cases, and therefore ACB, Mumbai returned the complaint of the petitioner to the EOW, Mumbai stating that any action on their part would amount to double jeopardy. However, Mr. Manere disputed the facts, figures disclosed by the petitioners in the petition relating to area surrendered by the developers to the MHADA on the Rane 20/51 PIL-28-2017 basis of letters dated 4th August 2017 and 22nd September 2017 written by MHADA and would contend that so far as civil proceedings are concerned, for recovery of the developed area, notices were issued to 29 developers and recovered 6376.12 sq. mtrs.
built up area. In para 10(ii), page 136 it is stated as under :-
"The developers of remaining 48 projects, had defaulted in handling over 14,021.99 Sq. Mtrs of area, which can be considered as the actual loss caused to MHADA as against 270027 Sq.
Mtrs. claimed by Petitioner.
Accordingly as mentioned in para 5 above, MHADA has filed FIR against 34 developers and one more complaint is under consideration with Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai. As far as civil proceedings in these matters are concerned, MHADA has already issued notices to developers in 29 cases and Rane 21/51 PIL-28-2017 recovered 6376.12 Sq.Mtrs of redeveloped area and received assurance of payment of Rs. 40.47 Crores as penalty. Further 6 developers have expressed their intention to settle their dues with MHADA and the process of handing over promised area/ compensation is in progress. In the remaining 2 cases, the matter is subjudice. This prima-facie shows that MHADA has also initiated civil proceedings/ arbitrations against errant developers."

20. On 11th January, 2018, Mr. Ramchandra Kondiba Dhanawade, Deputy Secretary to the State, Housing Department, has filed reply-affidavit and attempted to shield MHADA officials, contending that surplus area required to be surrendered to the MHADA by developers is always at the completion of Rane 29/51 PIL-28-2017 the project and not at any stage, during or before the construction. He contended that as per the information received from the MHADA, monetary compensation of Rs.37.76 Crores, in lieu of the surplus built-up area admeasuring 2947.48 sq.mtrs. has been recovered. It is further stated in the reply-affidavit, that FIRs are registered against the developers/project holders, for not surrendering surplus area and in some cases, notices have been challenged by the developers and in other five cases, directions have been issued to register the FIR. These statements of facts (in paragraph 17 of the reply affidavit) are not supported by any document or material particulars. Be that as it may, reply of the State, however, does not answer, as to why for years together officials of the MHADA did not take any efforts or steps to recover the constructed Rane 30/51 PIL-28-2017 area. Neither of the respondents have informed the Court about the effective steps taken by the officials of the MHADA to recover the surplus constructed area from the developers, which is about 30,00,000 sq.fts. In reply affidavits, respondents are simply disputing facts and figures of area to be surrendered by the developers, which is otherwise contrary to the information supplied by them to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. It lacks credence and therefore we do not accept it.

27. We have noticed and noted that the stand taken by the respondents before us is contrary to what they have stated in their reply-affidavits.

28. Once projects are sanctioned under the DCR 33(7), component of the constructed area to be surrendered by the developer to the MHADA assumes character of property of the State, which the officials of the MHADA and the Board are/were to appropriate for the benefit of the State. But by willful omissions, these officials allowed and permitted the developers to appropriate, such surplus area, which was/is under their control and Rane 38/51 PIL-28-2017 thereby caused huge loss to the State to the extent as stated hereinabove and caused unlawful gain to the developers. Therefore, component of constructed area to be surrendered by the developers to the MHADA, being property under their control, but who by their deliberate/intentional omissions failed to appropriate for the benefit of the State and thus, committed penal offences, besides knowingly disobeyed directions of law. Once the developer is granted permission to re-develop the cess buildings under DCR 33(7), officers of the MHADA, being public servants, were under statutory obligations to ensure recovery of constructed area, but in this case material on record clearly indicates that these officers knowingly and intentionally disobeyed the directions of law and such dis-obedience has caused loss to the State. Material on record equally Rane 39/51 PIL-28-2017 indicates that the component of constructed area, which is to be surrendered to the MHADA, has been sold by the developers in the open market. Though this fact was within knowledge of the officers of the MHADA/Board, they turned nelsons eye, obviously for the reasons known to all. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint and material on record constitutes credible information, which prima-facie discloses commission of cognizable offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and other penal laws.