-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.2726 OF 2005 Subhoday Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. : Petitioner V/s. Mariamma Nagar Co-op. Housing Society (Proposed) & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.R.S.Apte with Mr.S.A.Abhyankar for the petitioner. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Rajan Kakkara for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Ms Aruna Savla for respondent No.3. Mr.G.D.Utangale for respondent Nos.4 & 5. Mr.P.Jadhav, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent No.6. Mr.Vineet Naik i/b. Naik Ayer & Co., for respondent No.8. ... CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE & S.R.DONGAONKAR,JJ. DATE : MARCH 29, 2006. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Apte in support of this petition which is filed by a private limited company claiming an interest in the development of a slum area situate at City Survey No.47(part) of Lower Parel, near Nehru Science Centre, Worli, Mumbai. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a developer by respondent No.1 society of -: 2 :- slumdwellers. It is contended that some 84% of them appointed the petitioner as a developer and an agreement was entered into with the petitioner on 17.7.1996 and one S.R.Naik & Associates were appointed as the Architects. An N.O.C. was given by the Municipal Corporation on 3.6.1997 for the proposed developer, since the parcel of land is owned by B.M.C. whereon the slum is situate. This petition was required to be filed since the authority of the petitioner for this development is determined and respondent No.8, another developer by name Akshaya Sthapatya Pvt. Ltd. is appointed to carry it out. This petition seeks a writ of mandamus against respondent No.5, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) that it should issue a Letter of Intent to the petitioner to complete the project governed under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and the Development Control Regulations. 2. It is claimed that the B.M.C. had conveyed no objection to permit re-development of this slum into the society and S.R. Naik & Associates as its Architects by its earlier communication dated 19.11.1996. It is further contended by the petitioner that a subsequent communication from the Municipal Corporation to this S.R. Naik was not received by him but by someone else. This is recorded in the letter dated 4.9.1999 from the Municipal Corporation. -: 3 :- 3. It, however, appears that the Municipal Corporation cancelled the N.O.C. given to S.R.Naik & Associates on 20.12.1999 which was challenged by one Mohammed Rais Khan and S.R.Naik by filing a suit in the City Civil Court. S.R.Naik & Associates were to put up a bridge on an open drain as a part of this scheme within a certain time. They had not started the work and, hence, the Municipal Corporation had issued a termination notice. On failing to obtain an interim order, Appeal from Order was filed which came to be heard by a single Judge of this Court. The said A.O. No.210 of 2001 was dismissed by an order dated 29.4.2002, while reserving liberty to the appellants to adopt such remedies as are open to them in law for espousing their claims. The Court also observed that the SRA will have due regard to the representation which may be submitted by appellant No.2 before the learned single Judge i.e. Mr.Mohammed Rais Khan. 4. The case of the petitioner is that though the 1st respondent society cancelled its appointment as a developer by communication dated 1.4.1998, it was subsequently revalidated on 16.9.1999. Mr.Sakhare, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2, very much disputes that any such revalidation was done by the society. Assuming that any such revalidation was done, no steps appear to have been taken by the petitioner for the -: 4 :- development of the concerned slum area. The above referred to Mr.Mohammed Khan filed a Writ Petition when respondent no.1 society appointed respondent No.8 to this petition as the developer. That petition came to be heard by a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (H.L.Gokhale, J.) was a party. The said Writ Petition bearing No.94 of 2004 was dismissed by order passed on 23.3.2005. The petition sought that respondent No.8 herein Akshaya Sthapatya Pvt. Ltd. should not be appointed as a developer but M/s.Lokhandwala Builders should be appointed. Thus, Mr.Mohamamed Rais Khan, at that stage, wanted to bring in another developer. The Court observed that all that the slumdwellers can claim was their right to 225 sq. ft. in the re-development scheme and nothing more. In that petition, a Chamber Summons was moved by the present petitioner, but since the petition was being rejected, the Chamber Summons was also rejected as infructuous. 5. Now the present Writ Petition is filed being aggrieved by the communication from the SRA dated 13.9.2005 on the petitioner’s representation to the effect that there is no proposal from the petitioner lying with the SRA, but the proposal is that of respondent No.8. As far as that aspect is concerned, Mr.Utangale appearing for SRA rightly points out that at the relevant time, i.e. prior to 1997, the proposals for slum development were to be made to the -: 5 :- land owning authority and subsequently they were to be forwarded to the SRA which arrangement has since been changed. The fact, however, remains that there is no proposal of the petitioner with the SRA. Now the petitioner is seeking a Letter of Intent from the SRA to the petitioner. Mr.Sakhare and Mr.Naik point out that it is too late in the day. In the meanwhile, the scheme has progressed further under respondent No.8. Some 128 structures have been demolished and they have been shifted to a rehabilitation camp. Thus, as can be seen, there is a serious dispute with respect to the rights of the petitioner to develop as an agent of respondent No.1. Assuming that the petitioner had any such right, apart from its termination by respondent No.1, the petitioner has forfeited the same by inaction for all these years. In the meanwhile, there has been progress in the development scheme of the slum area. The developer is the agent of the society concerned. In view of the inaction on the part of the petitioner and otherwise also on account of delay, the petitioner would not be entitled to interfere with the scheme which is already progressing. No case for interference is made out. 6. Writ Petition is dismissed. H.L. GOKHALE, J. -: 6 :- S.R.DONGAONKAR, J.