1 Wp 622.10 a/w wps 1328 and 1345.10 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 622 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1328 OF 2010 WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1345 OF 2010 WP No. 622 of 2010 Matoshree Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed). .. Petitioners VS The Dy. Collector (Enc/Rem) Western Suburb, M.S.D., & Others. .. Respondents -- WP (L) No.1328 of 2010 Suryakant Shantaram Salaskar. .. Petitioner Vs The Dy. Collector (Enc/Rem) Western Suburb, M.S.D., & Others. .. Respondents -- WP(L) No. 1345 of 2010 Pundalik Rajaram Jadhav ( deceaseed ) Sangeeta Pundalik Jadhav. .. Petitioner Vs The Dy. Collector (Enc/Rem) Western Suburb, M.S.D., & Others. .. Respondents -- 2 Wp 622.10 a/w wps 1328 and 1345.10 Shri V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate i/by Shri S.M. Suryawanshi for the Petitioners in all the above three writ petitions. Shri A.B. Ketkar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7 in all the above three writ petitions. Shri J.G. Reddy for Respondent Nos.3 and 5 in all the above three writ petitions. Shri Anuj Narula for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in all the above three writ petitions. -- CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J DATE : 3RD AUGUST, 2010 P.C. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 622 of 2010 is a proposed co-operative housing society, without disclosing the number of its members or their names. The other two writ petitions are filed by the two individuals claiming to be the slum dwellers on the land bearing CTS No.249 (Part), Gaodevi, V.P. Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai. The petitioners are challenging the permission granted through the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in favour of respondent No. 6 in Writ Petition No. 622 of 2010. The challenge is mainly on the ground that the slum dwellers who are alleged to have given consent for the project proposed by respondent No.6 had not given their consent in favour of the said respondent, the consent was given by the slum dwellers in favour of the petitioner itself. The grievance was examined by the High Power Committee and in the decision dated 1st August, 2009, the High Power Committee has held that the petitioner society has not made out any case along with documentary proof to 3 Wp 622.10 a/w wps 1328 and 1345.10 show that the competent authority had wrongly issued Annexure-II in favour of the respondent- developer or that there were irregularities. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decision of the High Power Committee was required to be reviewed and, therefore, the petitioner society had filed the review application but the same was dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly submitted that the question whether the slum dwellers of the land in question had given their consent was required to be verified by the spot inquiry which was not allowed to be conducted as per the telephonic instructions given on 14th March, 2008 which fact is disclosed in the letter dated 15th March, 2008 of the Additional Collector ( Encroachment/Demolition ), Western Suburbs, Mumbai. 4. On behalf of the respondents, it is pointed out that, as stated in the affidavit-in-reply of Dr. S.V. Patil, Resident Deputy Collector in the office of the Additional Collector ( Encroachment/Demolition ), Western Suburbs, Mumbai, the proposal for issuing Annexure-II of Gaodevi Co-operative Housing Society had been forwarded by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to the office of the Additional Collector ( Encroachment/Demolition ), Western Suburbs, Mumbai, and by following due process of law, the spot verification, enquiry and checking of documentary evidence of the slum dwellers, the office of the Additional Collector ( Encroachment/Demolition ), Western Suburbs, Mumbai, had issued 4 Wp 622.10 a/w wps 1328 and 1345.10 Annexure-II on 23rd March, 2005 for 88 slum dwellers out of whom 52 slum dwellers had been declared eligible and 36 slum dwellers had been declared ineligible. As per the office record of the competent authority, out of 52 eligible members, 48 slum dwellers had given their consent i.e. nearly 92% of the eligible members gave their consent in favour of the respondent No.6-developer to implement the slum rehabilitation scheme as against requisite 70% members. It is further stated that since the survey was already done earlier, the developer had objected to any fresh survey being carried out. On behalf of the respondent- developer, reliance is placed on the panchanama prepared on 28th July, 2006, which was signed by the petitioner Ravi Sitaram Sawant and others, in support of the contention that the previous survey had correctly recorded the verification of the consent given by more than 70% members. It is further pointed out in the affidavit-in- reply filed on behalf of respondent No.5 society that after Annexure-II was issued in favour of respondent No.6-developer on 23rd March, 2005, a letter of intent came to be issued in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 20th July, 2005. On 24th February, 2006, Intimation of Approval was granted in favour of respondent No.6-developer for construction of rehabilitation building and thereafter, the slum rehabilitation authority granted permission on 12th December, 2006 to construct temporary transit camp on a portion of the land bearing CTS No.249 (Part) itself. Respondent No.6 has already constructed temporary alternate camp and housed 32 slum dwellers including the shopkeepers and in the meantime on 9th January, 2007, commencement certificate had also been issued by the slum rehabilitation authority in favour of respondent No.6-developer in respect of the rehab building. 5 Wp 622.10 a/w wps 1328 and 1345.10 It is also stated in the said affidavit-in-reply that pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 19th June, 2006 in Writ Petition No. 681 of 2006, the Additional Collector (ENC) in his report dated 1st August, 2006 stated that the slum dwellers had put up two hutments out of one by making partition in their structures and as such they are not entitled to more than one tenement under the slum rehabilitation scheme. It is further stated that again on 15th October, 2007, re- survey was done with video shooting and panchanama was also made in presence of the said Ravi Sawant. Said Ravi Sawant was accepted as a member of respondent No.5- society on 20th October, 2007. 4. It is submitted that thus although respondent Nos.5 and 6 have done everything within their power to see that the transit camps are constructed, on account of the various litigations taken out by the petitioners who are in minority, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have not been able to take up construction of the rehabilitation building. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that after permission was granted by the slum rehabilitation authority in March, 2005, re-survey was done on 28th July, 2006 and again on 15th October, 2007 and one of the petitioners was present at the said re- survey. Hence, the grievance made in the present writ petitions that the consent of the slum dwellers was not correctly recorded in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 cannot be entertained. It appears that on account of various proceedings taken out by the petitioners in the past, entire work of construction of rehabilitation buildings has been unnecessarily delayed without any advantage to any party except those 6 Wp 622.10 a/w wps 1328 and 1345.10 who are trying to delay the construction of the rehabilitation buildings as a part of implementation of the slum rehabilitation project. All this has delayed the construction of the rehabilitation buildings in which the slum dwellers would be ultimately residing. We do not, therefore, see any merit in the writ petitions and the same deserve to be dismissed. 6. Before parting with the matter, we must observe that a large number of petitions are being filed challenging implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme, which do not always appear to be bonafide. Some of the petitions definitely appear to be malafide, instigated by business rivalry or for such other reasons. In appropriate cases, this Court will consider this aspect and whenever a petition is found to have been filed malafide, the Court may consider disqualifying such petitioners from their entitlement to allotment in the rehabilitation buildings. Since these observations are being made for the first time, this Court does not propose to pass such an order in this petition, but will consider in future to pass such an order applying such principles. Nevertheless, while dismissing the petitions, we direct the petitioners to pay respondent Nos.5 and 6 the costs quantified at Rs. 25,000/-. The costs shall be paid within a period of one month from today. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J