usj IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2189 OF 2009 PETITION NO.2189 OF 2009 PETITION NO.2189 OF 2009 Ashok G. Talekar & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. ..Respondents ...... Mr. V.J. Hegde for the Petitioner Mr. P.P. Kakade, AGP for the State Mr. Girish Utangale for Respondent No.1 Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Sr.Counsel for Respondent No.6 R.D. Soni for Respondent No.4 ...... CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2009 : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2009 : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioners are the slum dwellers who are aggrieved by order passed by the Collector, whereby their appeal is dismissed at the admission stage with the direction to the competent authority i.e. the Deputy Collector to take action on the application as per the directions of the High Court order dated 28.1.2009. 2. The order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 28.1.2009 in Writ Petition (L) No.2583 of 2008 is as under:- ( 2 ) "The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners wishes to withdraw this petition with liberty to appear before the respondent No.5 and pursue the matter in terms of the order of High Power Committee. It is also stated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 that the records would be available in relation to grant of consent." 3. The rival contentions are based upon the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme as per Regulation 33(10) of Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991. 4. This court has constituted a High Power Committee with specific purpose including to decide and deal with the objections in all respect with regard to the scheme including the eligibility of the slum dwellers and the mandatory 70% consent of the members / slum dwellers. 5. The whole argument of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that consent was obtained by playing fraud and it is not in accordance with the rules. Therefore, there is no question to proceed with the scheme. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners makes a statement that there are about 30 to 35 persons who are objecting to the scheme. However, the present petition is filed by ( 3 ) five petitioners. The High Power Committee has after considering the rival contentions in Appeal No.48 of 2008 filed by the petitioners specifically observed as under :- ".... And therefore if the applicant wishes to file a separate complaint regarding irregularities in Ann-II issued by the Competent Authority, they may file the said complaints along with documentary evidence before the Additional Collector (Enc/Rem), Western Suburb Competent authority. The Additional Collector (Enc/Rem), Western Suburb & Competent Authority is directed to verify the same and submit the Compliance Report before this Committee. ...." . It means, the High Power Committee has given liberty to raise objection, if any, regarding irregularities in Annexure II. 6. As noted above, the Division Bench of this Court while passing the order observed on the statement given by respondent No.5 i.e. Deputy Collector’s order noted that the record would be available in relation to the grant of consent. It is to be noted that the said Annexure II was noted by the High Power Committee and after considering the material permitted to proceed with the scheme by observing as under :- ( 4 ) ".....Keeping in mind the rehabilitation of 95 eligible slum dwellers and in the larger public interest we find that no need to continue the order of status quo granted by the Hon’ble High Court in the present Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. In view of the above, nothing survives in the Appeal. Hence the appeal stands dismissed." . Whereby even vacated the order of status-quo granted by the High Court. 7. Having got clearance from the High Power Committee, as they satisfied and passed the order and at the relevant time though the basic order was agitated in various proceedings in Writ Petition No.2529 of 2008 and as there is no order which has interfered with the findings given by the High Power Committee, I see there is no reason, now to interfere with the said conclusion on the submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners again in this matter, which ultimately nothing but re-opening of the same issue, which in the present facts and circumstances of the case is unjust and improper. 8. The so called irregularities and even if agitated, it requires detailed material as well as averments and unless that is decided, I see there is ( 5 ) no reason to interfere and halt the scheme in question in the interest of public at large. 9. The Collector in this background considering the purpose of the scheme as well as the findings given by the authorities, dismissed the appeal against the order dated 18.12.2007 passed by the Deputy Collector on this foundation, is within the fram-work of law and the record. The order passed by the Dy.Collector dated 18.12.2007, was also challenged in the Writ Petition, which was withdrawn. Now again for want of documents from respondent’s side, the insistence is to maintain the status-quo. This will again halt the scheme. In the impugned order the Collector has already observed that the Dy.Collector would take action as per direction of High Court at the earliest 10. The petition is dismissed accordingly. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)