JUDGMENT

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.

1. I.A. NO.1 for impleadment is ordered on 10.07.2006. M/s Sigtia Construction Company Private Limited was impleaded as respondent NO.5 in Special Leave Petition No. 10281 of 2006.

2. I.A. NO.3 of 2006 was filed by the applicant – M/s Sigtia Construction Company Private Limited to recall the order dated 27.06.2006 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition No. 10281 of 2006. The order passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition NO.10281/2006 dated 27.06.2006 reads thus:

ORDER

Heard Mr.L.N.Rao, senior advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjay V. Kharde, Mr.B.S.Rao and Ms. Indra Sawhney, advocates accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3. We also heard their submissions.

By a prayer for interim relief, the petitioners seek direction directing the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to issue a letter of intent in favour of M/s Keya Developers and Construction Company (P) Ltd. For undertaking re-development work in the slum situated at Irla Tank, S.v. Road, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai.

The grievance of the petitioners is that despite no legal impediment, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority was not issuing the letter of intent in favour of M/s Keya Developers and Construction Company (P) Ltd. despite a request made by the Society. According to them, it was merely a case of replacement of previous developers M/s Sigtia Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. who had not even started the project even after almost eight years and whose agreement with the Society had come to an end by efflux of time.

Mr. Sunil K.Varma, advocate, appears for the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra (E), Mumbai (respondent No.1). The learned counsel submits that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority will issue proper orders within two weeks from today. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.1, we direct the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to issue the letter of intent in favour of M/s Keya Developers and Construction Company (P) Ltd. which is also represented by Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel and the Society is represented by Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned senior counsel.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly."

3. The reasons for recalling the order as stated in LA.No.3 of 2006 are as under:-

3.1. The applicant Sigtia Construction Company Private Limited (in short "Sigtia") was appointed as developer by the Vile Parle Prem Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter called "Society" the respondent No.2). The applicant who is directly affected by an order appointing M/s Keya Developers and Construction Private Limited (in short "Keya") as Developer was not made a party respondent in Writ Petition No. 1277 of 2006 and also in the Special Leave Petition No. 10281 of 2006 although the applicant was a party in the previous proceedings, namely, Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004 which was filed before the High Court and the Special Leave Petition No. 11318 of 2005 and 19848 of 2005. According to the applicant, the respondents in the Special Leave Petition No.10281 are not contesting respondents and particularly respondent KJo.1 - the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (in short "SRA") had taken a stand before this Court in earlier round in Special Leave Petition No. 19848 of 2005 by way of an affidavit that they will abide by any orders which may be passed by this Court. Nobody appeared for Bombay Municipal Corporation on 27.06.2006. Therefore, there was nobody present who could have opposed the passing of the order. The applicant, against whom allegations were made, was not made a party to the special leave petition. It was the duty of the petitioner in the special leave petition, to make the applicant Sigtia, who is directly affected, a party to the special leave petition. However, instead of doing that this Court was given the impression that all the affected parties were before this Court.

4. Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant Sigti