VBC 1 wp9406.10-8.6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.9406 OF 2010 Smt.Sulochana Rajaram Shirke. ..Petitioner. versus High Power Committee & Ors. ..Respondents. ..... Mr.Mukesh M. Vashi with Mr.S.A.Sawant and Ms.Gunjan Shah i/b.Mr.J.S.Chandanani for the Petitioner. Mr.Vijay D.Patil for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Vishal Kanade with Mr.Tamhane i/b. Tamhane & Co. for Respondent No.3. Mr.Dinyar D.Madon, Senior Advocate with Ms.Vaishali R.Bhilare for Respondent No.4. Ms.Aparna D.Vhatkar, AGP for Respondent No.5. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA , JJ. June 8, 2011. P.C. : The Petitioner seeks to impugn an order passed by the High Power Committee on 12 November 2010 and the Letter of Intent issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in respect of a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under D.C.R. 33(10). 2. The order of the High Power Committee notes that the contention of the Petitioner is that her husband had purchased the VBC 2 wp9406.10-8.6 land in question, admeasuring 900 sq.yards from a Charitable Trust and had constructed a structure thereon. According to the Petitioner, there are fifteen occupants of the structure. The Letter of Intent makes it clear that there are fourteen occupants, who are eligible to participate in the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Of them, nine are residential, while five are commercial structures. In so far as the Petitioner is concerned, her case is that her consent was obtained by coercion. The Petitioner had filed a private complaint, upon which an order was passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Petitioner has been held eligible for the allotment of three tenements in the scheme. The High Power Committee was of the view that as an eligible slum occupant, the Petitioner was entitled to get rehabilitation tenements in accordance with Scheme. The allegation of the Petitioner that her consent was obtained by coercion was the subject matter of a criminal prosecution and it was the view of the High Power Committee that it was not an issue before it for determination. 3. Under D.C.R. 33(10), the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme VBC 3 wp9406.10-8.6 has to be supported by 70% of the occupants. Out of the fifteen structures, the Petitioner is eligible in respect of three. However, according to Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, three other structure owners had filed affidavits before the High Power Committee questioning the validity of their consents. Hence, it was urged before the Committee and again before this Court that if the consents of the Petitioner and three other structure owners are excluded, the Scheme would not have the support of 70% of the occupants. 4. In so far as the three other persons are concerned, it is an admitted position that they did not file complaints before the High Power Committee. They have not moved this Court to ventilate their grievance, if any. Even otherwise, if the affidavits of those three occupants (copies of which are annexed to these proceedings), are perused, it is evident from those affidavits that the three persons have merely stated that their consents were obtained by misleading them and that the consents were sought to be withdrawn. It is not the case of the structure owners that they have not furnished consents or that the consents are fabricated. It VBC 4 wp9406.10-8.6 is well settled now that a consent which is once furnished is binding. None of the other persons has chosen to espouse any grievance in respect of the consents. In this view of the matter, even if the Petitioner were to be excluded for the purpose of computing 70% consents, it is evident that the Scheme would not fall short of the requirement under the law. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Co-operative Housing Society and the Developer urged that the Petition has not been filed bonafide and it is evident from a perusal of the averments, particularly those in paragraphs 3 to 7 that the Petition has been motivated by a third party. The Petition, it has been submitted before the Court, has not been verified by the Petitioner, but by a person by the name of Pramod Shirke, who, it is alleged in paragraph 7, is a nephew of the Petitioner. For the purpose of these proceedings, it is not necessary for the Court to enter into this aspect of the matter any further. The Petition would have to be dismissed on the sole ground that the other persons whose interest the Petitioner seeks to espouse have not complained before this Court or the High Power Committee. Moreover, even if the consent VBC 5 wp9406.10-8.6 of the Petitioner were to be excluded, the Scheme would not fall short of the required consent of 70% of the slum dwellers. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, no case for interference is made out. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( Anoop V. Mohta, J.)