srk １ wp-401-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.401 OF 2010 Shree Sai Ganesh Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Mumbai Municipal Corporation and others. ... Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.665 OF 2010 Narendra T. Marolia and others. ... Petitioners Versus High Power Committee, constituted under the Slum Act & Housing Department and another. ... Respondents Mr. U.P. Warunjikar for the petitioners. Ms. Geeta Jogalekar for respondent No.1. Ms. S.M. Dandekar, Assistant Government Pleader for State-respondent No.2. Mr. J.G. Reddy for respondent No.3. Ms. Sarita Donde for respondent No.5 and for respondent No.3 in W.P. No.665 of 2010. Mr. Milind More, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2 in W.P. No.665 of 2010. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Tuesday, August 3, 2010 P .C. Challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 22nd May, 2009 of the High Power Committee in Appeal No.134 of 2008. srk ２ wp-401-10 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.203 of 2010 is New Shree Sai Ganesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited (Proposed), situated at Daulat Nagar, Linking Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai. The plot in question admeasures 11,964.18 sq.mts. and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority had sanctioned a scheme for redevelopment by giving permission to the three contractors viz. M/s. Housing Development & Improvement India Pvt.Ltd,, M/s. Pioneer India Developers Pvt.Ltd. and M/s. Chauhan & Brothers . All the three contractors were to undertake the project jointly. When the said contractors completed about 75% of the project work, M/s. Chauhan & Brothers resigned from the project. The petitioner-society had entered into an agreement with M/s. Chauhan & Brothers and, therefore, the petitioner prayed that other two developers should not be allowed to redevelop the property but the petitioner-society should be allowed to employ or engage its own developer. 3. When one of the other two developers viz. M/s. Pioneer India Developers Pvt.Ltd. approached the respondent-authorities, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority sent a communication dated 26th March, 2008 to the Administrator & Commissioner, Konkan Commissioner, indicating that 75% work of the project is over. The developers have constructed 25 rehabilitation buildings wherein about 2650 eligible slum dwellers have been permanently rehabilitated and now 2 rehabilitation buildings remained to be constructed out of the sanctioned 27 rehabilitation buildings under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in favour of three developers. 4. When the matter came before the State Government, by the impugned communication dated 22nd September, 2009, the concerned officer in the Housing Department of the State Government informed the Chief srk ３ wp-401-10 Executive Officer, Slums Rehabilitation Authority that since M/s. Chauhan & Brothers had itself dropped out by giving resignation, the remaining scheme has to be completed by other two developers and Government is giving sanction to complete the scheme to the other developers viz. M/s.Housing Development Improvement India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s.. Pioneer India Development Pvt.Ltd. 5. Prior to the above decision, the petitioner moved the High Power Committee. The High Power Committee by the impugned decision dated 22nd May, 2009 disposed of the appeal by passing the following order: "It is seen from the records that when the scheme was initiated, the developer consortium was selected by the Government. One of the members of the said consortium has resigned from it. The issue now is whether the balance scheme should be completed by the remaining two members of the consortium or a new member be inducted in the place of the member who has resigned. Under such circumstances, both or either of the parties have to approach the State Government for appropriate order to rehabilitate the appellants. Both the parties are therefore directed to approach the Govt. of Maharashtra. Hence, Appeal stands disposed off accordingly." 6. The High Power Committee, thus, asked both the developers to approach the Government for appropriate order to rehabilitate the appellants. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had selected M/s. Chavan & Brothers as its developer and thereafter M/s. Chavan & Brothers have resigned from developing the property in question, the petitioner-society has now selected M/s. Chandlok Developers for execution of the project and that the impugned decision taken by the Slum srk ４ wp-401-10 Rehabilitation Authority is without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Hence, the High Power Committee ought not to have confirmed the said decision. 8. We do not find any substance in the petitions for the simple reason that out of 27 rehabilitation buildings to be constructed on the entire plot of land under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by way of joint project, 25 rehabilitation buildings have already been constructed and 2 buildings remain to be constructed. The matter remained under objection for more than one and half years and that completion of the entire project has been delayed only because of the opposition of the petitioners. When 25 out of 27 rehabilitation buildings have already been constructed and the other two buildings have to be completed by the other two developers jointly, we do not find any merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed accordingly. 9. The petitioner has sought to raise various legal contentions. We do not think it proper to set out or deal with those contentions in our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority has already taken a view which has been affirmed by the High Power Committee. The final decision taken by the State Government is based on the report of the SRA submitted after site inspection. Thus, the authorities have endeavoured to ensure expeditious completion of the project in the interest of the slum dwellers. Such decision is not to be interfered within writ jurisdiction. The petitions are dismissed. No costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.