1 wp No. 1346 of 2010 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1346 OF 2010 Ekta Mahim SRA Cooperative Housing Society & Anr. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. D.D. Madan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.G. Surana for petitioners. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader with Mr. Milind More, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1, 4 and 6. Mr. V.A. Thorat, Sr. Advocate i/by M/s. Lilani Shah & Co. for respondent no. 5. Mr. Anirudha A. Joshi i/by Mr. S.V. Wasnik for respondent no. 7. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : OCTOBER 05, 2010 P.C. 1. A proposed Cooperative Society and a Developer have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.4.2010 of the High Power Committee rejecting the petitioners' application challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 15.5.2009 of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority rejecting the 2 wp No. 1346 of 2010 petitioners' proposal for approval of Slum Rehabilitation scheme. 2. The facts leading to filing of this petition, briefly stated are as under : 2.1. Petitioner No. 1 through petitioner no. 2 submitted proposal to S.R.A. for development of the slum on the land in question under Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations. Along with the said proposal, the petitioners had also submitted Annexure II certifying that out of 158 eligible persons, 107 i.e. 67.62% had given their consent in favour of petitioner no. 2 as their developer. On 22.9.2000, the Petitioner's proposal was closed by S.R.A. and intimation to that effect was given to the petitioners. It appears that nothing happened in the matter till 2006. 2.2 On 15.9.2006 the Chief Executive Officer of S.R.A. reopened the file. When the consent of the Slum dwellers was again verified, it transpired that only 14% slum dwellers gave consent in favour of petitioner no. 2. Thereafter, however, on 19.4.2008 the Additional Collector of S.R.A. issued Annexure II with the proposal of the petitioners certifying that out of 116 eligible slum dwellers, 86 slum dwellers gave their consent in favour of petitioner no. 2 i.e. 74% consent. Ultimately in view of the objections which were received against the aforesaid Annexure II in the year 2008/09, the CEO of S.R.A. convened a meeting of the slum dwellers under the supervision of the representatives of S.R.A. for considering whether petitioner nos. 1 and 2 were acceptable to the occupiers. Out of 106 slum dwellers who had given their consent in Annexure II, 105 attended the meeting 3 wp No. 1346 of 2010 and 57 persons rejected the proposal of petitioner no. 2. In view of the above, the CEO of S.R.A. submitted reports dated 18.3.2009 and 24.3.2009 and thereafter the Chief Executive Officer closed the petitioner's file on 15.5.2009. 2.3. On 18.5.2009, respondent no. 5 society along with respondent no. 7 as the developer submitted proposal for Rehabilitation Scheme. The competent authority of S.R.A. issued Annexure II to the proposal of respondent nos. 5 and 7. As per the said Annexure II certificate dated 13.8.2009, out of 174 slum dwellers i.e. 90%, 156 gave their consent in favour of respondent nos. 5 and 7. In view of the above, the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies cancelled the reservation given to petitioner no. 1-proposed society and on 17.9.2009 meeting of the occupiers was held in the presence of officers in the department of Cooperation. Annexure III was also approved by the Financial Controller of Respondent No. 2 on 30.09.2009. Thereafter on 17.11.2009 Letter of Intent came to be issued by S.R.A. in favour of respondent nos. 5 and 7. On 23.11.2009 respondent No. 5 came to be registered as a Cooperative Society under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 2.4. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.5.2009 passed by S.R.A., petitioners filed an application before the High Power Committee on 12.10.2009. At the hearing of petitioner's application before the High Power Committee, the High Power Committee called for report of the CEO of S.R.A. who submitted his reports to the High Power Committee on 8.3.2010 and 15.4.2010. By the impugned order dated 30.4.2010 the 4 wp No. 1346 of 2010 High Power Committee dismissed the petitioners' application. Hence, the present petition. 2.5. During the pendency of this petition, the plans submitted by respondent No. 7 came to be approved under Intimation of Approval dated 12.7.2010 and commencement certificate also came to be issued by S.R.A. on 17.9.2010. 3. Mr. Madan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order dated 30.4.2010 of High Power Committee on the following main grounds:- (a) S.R.A. closed the petitioners' proposal by order dated 15.5.2009 without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Petitioners had also obtained consent of 74% of the Slum Dwellers as per the report dated 19.4.2008 and certification made by the Additional Collector on Annexure II of the proposal of the petitioners. (b) It is also submitted that so called impugned order dated 15.5.2009 of S.R.A. contains no reasons for closing the petitioners' file. (c) As held by this Court in Awadhesh Tiwari case, 2006 (4) Mh.L.J. 282, once 70% slum dwellers have given their consent in favour of a proposed society and their developer, slum dwellers can not change their mind and withdraw the consent. Such withdrawal will have no effect in the eye of Law. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for S.R.A., learned 5 wp No. 1346 of 2010 counsel for Respondent No. 5 society and the learned counsel for Respondent No. 7 - developer have opposed the petition and made following submissions : (i) The petitioners' proposal was closed by S.R.A. as far back as on 22nd September, 2000 and the petitioners had done nothing in the matter till CEO, S.R.A. reopened the file on 15.9.2006. (ii) Government Resolution dated 17.1.2008 has prescribed detailed procedure for certifying annexure II for S.R.A. scheme. The said Government Resolution was required to be issued in view of various complaints in respect of authenticity of annexure II being submitted by developers and proposed societies and various litigations generated on account thereof. In order to avoid the obstacles in implementation of rehabilitation schemes, the Government resolution has prescribed detailed procedure in which it was mandatory to go for a verification of the consents and record them in the biometric form with thumb impressions and photographs. Annexure II certified by the Additional Collector on 19.4.2008 was without following the procedure as prescribed in the above G.R. dated 17.1.2008. (iii) The meeting conducted by S.R.A. in presence of the representatives of S.R.A. on 15.3.2009 was conducted after following procedure prescribed in the aforesaid Government resolution including video shooting of the meeting. At the said meeting 105 slum dwellers were present and they rejected petitioner no. 2 as developer and thus majority of the slum dwellers have rejected petitioner no. 2 as their developer. Hence, petitioners' have no locus standi to make any 6 wp No. 1346 of 2010 grievance. (iv) 90% i.e. 156 out of 174 slum dwellers have given consent in favour of respondent No. 7 as developer and, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by S.R.A. and High Power Committee. (v) The Letter of Intent has already been issued in favour of respondent nos. 5 and 7 on 17.11.2009. The Intimation of Approval of plans submitted by respondent No. 7 has also been issued on 12.7.2010 and the commencement certificate has also been issued in favour of respondent nos. 5 and 7 on 17.9.2010. 176 Slum dwellers have already been shifted and their hutments are demolished. Respondent No. 7 is paying them rent for temporary alternative accommodation and respondent No. 7 is about to commence the process for constructing the permanent accommodation for the slum dwellers who have already waited for the last about twelve years for getting decent houses and, therefore, interference of this Court at this stage, will delay that process. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have considered their rival submissions. 6. It is not in dispute that as per Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations, the developer and proposed society must obtain consent of at least 70% of the slum dwellers for approval of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The High Power Committee has noted that when the petitioners' proposal was certified by the competent 7 wp No. 1346 of 2010 authority on 26.11.1999, consent was obtained of only 67.2% i.e. 107 out of 158 of the eligible slum dwellers. Be that as it may, nothing would turn upon that, because that proposal of the petitioners was closed on 22.9.2000. There is nothing on record to indicate as to what prompted the CEO of S.R.A. to reopen the petitioners' file on 15.9.2006, but on the next occasion i.e. on 17.10.2007 when the petitioner's proposal was examined, only 14% of the slum dwellers had given consent in favour of petitioner no. 2 developer. Subsequently certification on Annexure II by Additional Collector on 19.4.2008 indicating 74% consent in favour of the petitioners does not seem to have been issued after following the due procedure prescribed in G.R. dated 17.1.2008. Even otherwise, on 15.3.2009 at the meeting of the slum dwellers convened by S.R.A. and conducted under the supervision of SRA representatives, 57 out of 105 slum dwellers who were present at the meeting, rejected petitioner No. 2 as developer, i.e. more than 50% of the slum dwellers rejected petitioner No. 2 as their developer and S.R.A. has thereafter already certified Annexure II with the proposal of respondent nos. 5 and 7 indicating that 156 out of 174 slum dwellers i.e. 90% of the slum dwellers have given consent in favour of respondent no. 7 as developer. 7. On the basis thereof, Respondent No. 5 society has already been registered on 23.11.2009 after cancelling the reservation of petitioner No. 1 society on 17.9.2009. This Court has in a catena of decisions taken a view that the proposed society has no locus standi to challenge the decision of S.R.A. given in favour of another proposed society which has already been registered as a Cooperative Society under the 8 wp No. 1346 of 2010 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. 8. As regards the contention vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that S.R.A. had closed the petitioners' file without giving them opportunity of hearing, it is to be noted that when the petitioners had themselves organized a meeting of the slum dwellers on 15.3.2009 under the supervision of the representatives of S.R.A., a majority of the slum dwellers rejected petitioner no. 2 as the developer. Hence, no further hearing was therefore, required to be given to the petitioners. 9. As regards the Petitioners' submission based on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Awadhesh Tiwari Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2006 (4) Mh.LJ. 282 that once the Slum Dwellers have selected developer, they can not be permitted to withdraw their consent, the ratio of this judgment would apply to a case where more than 70% of the slum dwellers have given their consent after following the procedure prescribed in the G.R. dated 17.1.2008. The said procedure was not followed when the Additional Collector certified Annexure II of the proposal of the Petitioners on 19.4.2008. 10. Apart from that, the principle laid down in Awadesh Tiwari's case is that once more than 70% slum dwellers have given their consent in favour of a particular developer, the slum dwellers cannot be permitted to change the developer. However, the consent given by 67.2% of the slum dwellers in April, 1999 had no validity as it fell short of the requisite minimum 70%. Moreover, nothing had happened for 9 wp No. 1346 of 2010 rehabilitation of the slum dwellers from 1999. The resolution passed by majority of the slum dwellers on 15.3.2009 rejecting the Petitioner as their developer cannot, therefore, be treated as of no consequence, because a long period of 12 years had already elapsed without any improvement in respect of rehabilitation of the slum dwellers. Any interference by this court at this stage will only delay the process of rehabilitation of the slum dwellers. 11. Hence, this Court finds no case for interference with the impugned decision. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.