1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2525 OF 2009 Premnagar Cooperative Housing Society(Proposed) & Anr. ..Petitioners. v/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents. Mr.R.V.Govilkar i/b. K.R. Tiwari & Co. for Petitioners. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, GP for State. Mr.G.D.Utangale i/b. Utangale & Co. for SRA. Mr.O.P.Pandey for Respondent No.5. Mrs. V.S.Gharapure for BMC. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR & A.P.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 17, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The limited grievance made in this Petition is that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority be directed to consider the claim of the Petitioners. 2 The grievance is that the said Authority is considering the claim only of two Developers M/s. Sigtia Constructions Private Ltd. and M/s. Keya Developers and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and has kept the application filed by the Petitioners in abeyance, as can be discerned from the order dated 7th February, 2007 passed by the High Power Committee. 3. The grievance made before us clearly overlooks the observations of the Apex Court in the Judgment dated 7th November, 2006 in SLP(Civil) No.10281 of 2006. In the said proceedings the Petitioners herein had filed application being I.A.No.8 of 2006 praying for recall of the Order dated 27th June, 2006 passed in the said SLP and to allow the Petitioners to file reply in the said Special Leave Petition. The case put forth by the Petitioners has been elaborately adverted to in the Judgment dated 7th November, 2006 in the following terms: “The appellant is a Zuveriya Developer. Their application or intervention is allowed and Mr. Shekhar Naphade, advocate was heard on his behalf. I.A. No.8 of 2006 was filed to recall the order dated 27.06.2006 in special leave petition No.10281 of 2006 and allow the applicant to file a reply to the above special leave petition. We have perused the intervention application. The applicant was not a party to the earlier writ petition. The applicant put up a proposal to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay being the competent authority under the act expressing its willingness to re-accommodate the hutment dwellers and offered to give certain portion of plot of land to Municipal corporation free 3 from encumbrances as per the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The Managing Committee of the original society have executed an agreement dated 16.07.1997 that the applicant and gave development rights in favour of the applicant for the development of the property. They have also issued general Power of Attorney in favour of the applicant. The Addl.Collector (Encroachment) has fixed the hearing for the purpose of issuance of Annexure-2 when one M/s.Sigtia Construction Pvt.Ltd. intervened in the matter by representing that another society by name Ville Parle Premnagar Cooperative Society (proposed) had appointed the said Sigtia as developer. The applicant was not a party to the writ petition No.988 of 2004 filed by some of the hutment dwellers not to issue annexure-3 and Letter of Intent in favour of Sigtia. The applicant or the original society was not a party to the said writ petition upon knowledge the applicant has taken out chamber summons in the petition to intervene in the matter. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and also the chamber summons as it was too late for the applicant to apply to join as party to the said writ petition. The applicant again made a representation to the SRA. The applicants are agreeable to obtain similar agreement from slum dwellers in support of the said proposal with a view to develop the property. Writ petition No.1277 of 2006 was also filed by the petitioners without impleading the applicant before the High Court. It is submitted without making the applicant a party, the petitioner has obtained an order dated 27.06.2006 whereby this Court has directed the SRA to issue a Letter of Intent in favour of Keya Developers. Hence the applicant is making the present intervention application for recalling the said order dated 27.06.2006. In our opinion, the above I.A. Has no merits and is belated. No relief can, therefore, be granted to the applicant. I.A.No.8 of 2006 stands dismissed.” . Besides, the above said observations, even the directions issued by the Apex Court in the said order is of some significance, which reads thus: “As directed by the order in writ petition No.988 of 2004 dated 11.03.2005 and order dated 04.05.2006 in writ petition No.1277 of 2006 the SRA is directed to call the two developers, namely, M/s.Keya and M/s.Sigtia and dispose of their application for 4 issuing the Letter of Intent and to pas appropriate orders and in accordance with the Maharashtra Slum Areas Improvement, Clearance and Re-development Act, 1971 and also strictly following the procedure for submission processing and approval of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and to Award the Letter of Intent to the developer who satisfies the required qualifications and conditions and regulations and the provision of the Act, 1971.” The Apex Court has thus not only rejected the application preferred by the Petitioners for intervention but has also observed that they have approached belatedly. From this direction, it follows that only the claim of M/s. Keya and M/s. Sigtia was to be considered by the Authority and not of the Petitioners. In the circumstances, it is not open for this Court to entertain the request of the Petitioners that the Authority be directed to consider the claim of the Petitioners which has been kept in abeyance. 4. To get over this position, Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners being Writ Petition No.2261 of 2006 alongwith companion Writ Petitions dated 12th December, 2007, in which following observations have been made : “2. All the above writ petitions are disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Committee within a period of four weeks from today. As and when the applications/petitions are presented before the Committee, the 5 Committee shall proceed with the matters in accordance with law expeditiously, as the petitioners raised certain grievances which deserve to be attended at the earliest. In view of disposal of the above writ petitions, Notices of Motion/Chamber Summonses, if any, are also disposed of. 3. The parties are at liberty to make appropriate applications for interim orders which shall be dealt with by the Committee in accordance with law and in its own discretion. We make it clear that we are not issuing any directions in relation to grant of interim reliefs.” 5. It is obvious from the record placed before us that the Judgment of the Apex Court dated 7th November, 2006 referred to above was not brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court by the Petitioners herein. The Petitioners cannot get over the observations of the Apex Court, which we have reproduced in the earlier part of this order. The order passed by this Court dated 12th December, 2007, in our opinion, will be of no avail to the Petitioners. That cannot be pressed into service, so as to invite directions which would be in effect inconsistent with the opinion of the Apex Court, which is reproduced in the earlier part of this order. 6. Counsel for the Petitioners also invited our attention to the Judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1036 of 2007 and Writ Petition No. 1589 of 2007 filed by the other two developers, dated 17th September, 2009. It is not necessary for us to elaborate on the matters decided in the 6 said proceedings. Counsel for the Respondent No.5 invited our attention to the fact that Keya Developers had filed some proceedings before the Apex Court against the decision of this Court dated 17th September, 2009 in which the Supreme Court has reiterated the fact that only the claim of M/s Keya Builders and M/s Sigtia Developers be considered by the parties. 7. The limited question that we are called upon to consider is : whether the Authority should be directed to consider the claim of the Petitioners herein? In our considered opinion, in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court, it is not possible to countenance that request of the Petitioners in the present proceedings. It will be open to the Petitioners to take recourse to such other remedy, as may be permissible and advised in that behalf. 8. Counsel for the Petitioners at this stage, submits that in that case, the Petitioners be given some time to approach the Apex Court for appropriate relief and till such time, the Authority who has been directed by the order passed of this Court today to decide proceedings pending between the two builders within 10 weeks from today be directed not to precipitate the matter for some reasonable time. Counsel for the Authority submits that the 7 proceedings between the two builders in any case will not be taken up for hearing for a period of one week from 22nd December, 2009. In the light of this statement, no further directions are warranted. 9. Accordingly, this Petition is disposed of on the above terms. A.P.DESHPANDE, J A.M.KHANWILKAR, J