2018 Supreme(SC) 1

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, Deepak Gupta, JJ.
SUSME BUILDERS PVT. LTD. – Appellant(s)
Vs.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY AND ORS. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 18121 OF 2017
Decided On : 04-01-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
Coordinate Bench must respect order of an earlier Bench. Even a larger Bench should not brush aside the order passed by an earlier Bench, even a smaller Bench, unless the order is in issue before the larger Bench.
Court taking recourse to innovative method to try and find a solution. Order attempting complete justice between the parties falls in the ambit of Article142.
Judicial order or judgment should be read as a whole. A single line or phrase cannot be read out of context. A judgment cannot be interpreted like a statute.
Authority issuing a letter has the power to cancel it.
Notice must state the allegations. It must be clear and unambiguous.
Individual agreements with 70% slum dwellers mandatory before the scheme can be taken up for consideration.
In Writ Proceedings petitioner must show that both in law and in equity it is entitled to relief.
Consent obtained by misrepresentation of facts is no consent.
Where the owners and occupiers are virtually one, the SRA had the jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Slum Act to revoke and set aside the right to develop and cancel the letter of intent. Even if it be assumed that Section 13(2) is not applicable, then the SRA could have exercised this power under Section 3A (3)(c) and (d) of Slum Act.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – Coordinate Bench must respect order of an earlier Bench – Even a larger Bench should not brush aside the order passed by an earlier Bench, even a smaller Bench, unless the order is in issue before the larger Bench – Instantly, Order dated 27.03.2015 not recalled and IA for modification rejected – Hence it holds the field – Binding on present Bench – At the same time present Bench duty bound to decipher intention of the earlier Bench. (Para 34)

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 142 – Court taking recourse to innovative method to try and find a solution – Order attempting complete justice between the parties – Falls in the ambit of Article142. (Para 35)

       © Interpretation of judgment – Judicial order or judgment should be read as a whole – A single line or phrase cannot be read out of context – A judgment cannot be interpreted like a statute. (Para 38)

       (d) Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Section 13(2) – Authority of SRA to take action and hand over development to developer – On contravention of approved plan or Contravention of section 12(10) or development nit taking place within time – Normally u/s 13(2) action has to be taken against the owner – Instantly slum dwellers members of owner-society having given power of attorney to builder – Both roles of the builder closely interlinked and inextricably mixed – No error in SRA taking action against the developer – SRA rightly cancelling letter of intent issued to the developer. (Para 44, 46, 47, 49)

       (e) Administrative law – Authority issuing a letter – Has the power to cancel it. (Para 50)

       (f) Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Section 3A(3)© and (d) – SRA empowered and duty bound to implement slum rehabilitation scheme – Action of SRA in removing the developer for unjustified delay totally justified. (Para 51)

       (g) Administration of justice – Notice – Must state the allegations – It must be clear and unambiguous. (Para 54)

       (h) Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Section 13(2) r/w Regulation 33(10), Development Control Regulations, 1991 – Notice referring Regulation 33(10) but not specifically raising issue of consent of 70% slum dwellers – Letter of intent not canceled on this issue – SRA also confining itself to issue of delay. (Para 55)

       (i) Development Control Regulations, 1997 – Clause 33(10) r/w clause 1.16 of Appendix IV – Individual agreements with 70% slum dwellers mandatory before the scheme can be taken up for consideration – SRA putting this condition and the developer accepting the same – Failing to obtain and produce consent of 70% slum dwellers till date. (Para 62, 70)

       (j) Constitution of India – Article 136 – SRA and High Court, after detailed consideration, concurrently holding the developer responsible for delay in implementation of the scheme – Supreme Court need not examine this contention in detail – No error in impugned order. (Para 71, 74)

       (k) Constitution of India – Article 226 and 32 – Writ Proceedings – Petitioner must show that both in law and in equity it is entitled to relief. (Para 76)

       (l) Administration of justice – Respondent 4 holding out false promise to slum dwellers of giving much larger flats in order to obtain their consent – Consent obtained by misrepresentation of facts is no consent – Still it has support of only 30% slum dwellers – Not entitled to continue with the project. (Para 79, 80, 81)

       Facts of the case:

       This old litigation having a chequered history in regard to development of slum area of Santacruz, Mumbai raises the following issues –

       (i) What is the scope, ambit and effect of the order of the Supreme Court dated 27.03.2015;

       (ii) What is the scope of powers under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act;

       (iii) Whether the SRA has any power to remove the developer;

       (iv) Whether in the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act the issue of 70% consent was raised;

       (v) Whether support of 70% of the slum dwellers is mandatory and whether slum dwellers are entitled to withdraw their consent;

       (vi) Whether Susme delayed the construction of the Scheme, and is, therefore, not entitled to any relief;

       (vii) Whether Susme is entitled to continue with the Scheme;

       (viii) In case Susme is not entitled to continue with the scheme whether respondent no. 4 J.G. Developers is entitled to continue with the rehabilitation scheme.

       Finding of the Court:

       Susme and J.G. Developers both are not entitled to any relief.

       Result: Pending applications disposed of. Matter adjourned.