1 MSS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 29 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 429 OF 2007 ANAND HIRALAL DARGAR .. PETITIONER Vs. SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY & ORS. RESPONDENTS Mr. Janak Dwarkadas with Chirag Balsara i/b Anup Khaitan & Co. for the petitioner Mr. J.G. Reddy for respondent 1. Mrs. Trupti Puranik for respondent 2. Mr. K. R. Belosay for respondent 3. Mr. Rajiv Matkar for respondent 4 Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar with Mr. Sanjeev Sawant with Mr. Himanshu Kode for respondent 5. CORAM:SMT.RANJANA DESAI & D. B. BHOSALE, JJ. DATE: 12th August, 2008 P.C. 1. In this review petition the petitioner is seeking review of our order dated 24/4/07. By the said order, the petition was dismissed. 2 2. Written submissions have been filed by the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. We have perused them. 3. We have heard Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioner. He submitted that the petition was dismissed by this court on the ground that rehabilitation scheme was at an advanced stage. He submitted that this observation was made by this court on the basis of affidavit of Shri Vinayak J. Patil, Secretary of the 4th respondent. Mr. Dwarkadas submitted that the statement made on oath by the 4th respondent that the scheme was at an advanced stage is false. Mr. Dwarkadas submitted that the fact that the development agreement of the petitioner was terminated by the 4th respondent society has no relevance to the instant review petition. What really weighed with the court as is evident from the order dated 24/4/07 is factually wrong statement made on affidavit by Shri Vinayak Patil, Secretary of the 4th respondent that the work of shifting of 125 hutment dwellers is already over and the scheme is at an advanced stage. He submitted that inasmuch as this statement was false, the order dated 24/4/07 deserves to be 3 reviewed because that statement precluded this court from going into the merits of the case. Mr. Dwarkadas submitted that in any case this is a fit case which should be referred to the High Power Committee. 4. In the written submissions, it is stated that in fact hutment dwellers were not shifted to transit camps. Respondent 4 has admitted in its reply that transit accommodation at site was given only to 20 commercial premises. It is submitted that order dated 7/12/07 passed by the Competent Authority holding that slum dwellers were liable to pay compensation in lieu of transit accommodation at site shows that in fact there was no shifting of slum dwellers. It is further submitted that order dated 5/5/08 passed by the Konkan Commissioner required the slum dwellers to vacate subject to ascertainment whether MOEF approval had been received in respect of Plot C.S.No.991. Until this fact is ascertained, rehabilitation scheme could not have been continued. It is submitted that certain documents which have been annexed by respondent 5 to its affidavit in reply dated 3/7/08 to the Notice of Motion taken out in the review petition show that the project was never at an 4 advanced stage as on 24/4/07. It is also submitted that the commencement certificate dated 15/4/08 has been issued on false representation that the project cost was under Rs.5 crores and that approval dated 4/3/08 given by the CZMA was adequate. It is further submitted that without the Property Register Card in respect of the aforesaid plot, the intimation of approval and permission for development could not have been granted. 5. We have heard Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent. He submitted that the petitioner has not made out any case for review of our order dated 24/4/07. Mr. Dhakephalkar pointed out that it is not only the statement made by Mr. Vinayak Patil in the affidavit that the scheme is at an advanced stage which weighed with this court while passing order dated 24/4/07 but this court quoted the relevant portion of the affidavit of Mr. Vinayak Patil where it is stated that the development agreement of the petitioner was terminated by the 4th respondent. Once the development agreement is terminated, the petitioner has no locus to raise any points. Mr. Dhakephalkar pointed out that after the termination of the petitioner’s 5 development agreement and after issuing the necessary permissions 120 ft. D.P. Road is already completed by shifting 150 dwellers from the site. He pointed out that even the present review petition is filed by the petitioner after gross delay of 400 days. In the circumstances, urged Mr. Dhakephalkar, the review petition be dismissed. 6. The prayer of the petitioner in the petition was that Letter of Intent be issued in his favour. The 4th respondent terminated its agreement with the petitioner on 12/7/2004. The petitioner did not challenge the said termination and as late as on 312/1/07 filed a petition seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to issue letter of intent for redevelopment of the said property in his favour. 7. Affidavit to which we have made reference in our order dated 24/4/07 was filed on 4/8/06. No rejoinder was filed by the petitioner to the said affidavit. We have in our order quoted paragraph 5 of the said affidavit wherein it is stated that by Resolution the society cancelled and revoked all old agreements, power of attorney, authorization letters, affidavits and consent letters as well as individual agreements of hutment dwellers made in 6 favour of the petitioner. Reference is made to the minutes of the General Body Meeting dated 12/7/04. In fact the said minutes are annexed to the affidavit of Mr. Vinayak Patil. It is also stated in that affidavit that by separate letters the Corporation was intimated about the termination of the agreement made with the petitioner. Reference is also made to the second general body meeting held on 14/7/04 in which respondent 5 was appointed as the developer of the scheme. After quoting this paragraph which contains material fact of termination of the petitioner’s development agreement, we have stated in our order that it is also stated in the affidavit that on 4/8/06 S.R.A. has issued LOI in favour of 5th respondent. Thereafter, we have made reference to the shifting of 125 hutment dwellers. Therefore, in our opinion, Mr. Dwarkadas is not right when he says that what weighed with us was only the fact that the scheme was at an advanced stage. The fact that the development agreement of the petitioner was cancelled is a very vital circumstance which we took into consideration while passing the order which is sought to be reviewed. It is submitted that the alleged false statement precluded the court from going into the merits. We find not 7 substance in this contention. Whether the termination was proper or not could not have been gone into in our writ jurisdiction more so when the petitioner’s only prayer was that direction be given to issue letter of intent in his favour. There is no challenge to the termination of development agreement and, hence, the petitioner has no locus to raise any points which he has tried to raise either in the petition or in the review petition. It was for the petitioner to challenge the said termination by adopting appropriate proceedings. If the development agreement was terminated on 12/7/04, the belated petition filed in the year 2007 cannot be entertained. Apart from this it does appear that in the meantime the scheme progressed further. In any case, if this statement made in the affidavit was incorrect nothing prevented the petitioner from filing rejoinder and state so on affidavit. Instead of filing an affidavit, after the order is passed a review petition is filed after a gross delay of about 365 days, which we have condoned in the interest of justice. 8. We are informed that as of today about 160 slum dwellers have vacated their premises and the 8 society has reposed full confidence in the 5th respondent developer in whose favour all the necessary permissions are issued by the S.R.A. and Competent Authorities. The prayer made by the petitioner to refer the matter to the High Power Committee therefore cannot be entertained. 9. In our opinion the present case does not fall in the parameters laid down by order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence it is not possible for us to review our order. Review petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE