DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. The subject matter of these proceedings is a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under DCR 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai. The Petitioners who are developers seek to impugn an order dated 6 December 2010 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority by which he has issued directions to process a letter of intent in favour of the Sixth Respondent on the ground that 70% of the members of the cooperative society eligible and present have “ ” supported the Sixth respondent at a meeting of the general body. The Petitioners also seek the issuance of an appropriate writ directing the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to process a proposal for redevelopment submitted by them and to consider the issuance of a letter of intent. Until that is done, the Petitioners have sought an injunction restraining the authority from considering any other proposal or application for the change of a developer.

2. The Fourth and Fifth Respondents are cooperative societies proposed to be formed of slum dwellers of land comprised in City Survey No.136 Part, 2/136 Part, 110 Part and 109 Part of Lower Parel Division at Worli, Mumbai. On 16 August 2003 the Fourth and Fifth Respondents executed two separate development agreements with the Petitioners. This was preceded by a resolution of the general body dated 13 October 2002. The Petitioners claimed to have obtained consents in writing of 95% of the slum dwellers. On 22 September 2003 a proposal was submitted for the redevelopment of the slum situated on the land under DCR 33(10). The land is owned by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Hence, Annexure II which would certify the list of eligible occupants was required to be certified by the Municipal Corporation.

3. On 30 June 2009 and 6 July 2009 a letter was addressed by the two cooperative societies to the Petitioners recording that at a meeting which was held of the general body, it had been resolved to terminate the agreement with the Petitioners on the ground that over the previous six years, no steps have been taken by the Petitioners to develop the property or to rehabilitate the residents. Since there was an arbitration agreement in the development agreements entered into by the Petitioners with the cooperative societies, the Petitioners moved a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. On 18 September 2009, an order was passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon ble Mr. Justice ’ Anoop V. Mohta) directing that pending the hearing and final disposal of the Petition any decision, if it was taken in a meeting proposed to be held on 20 September 2009 of the society, would be subject to the result of the Petition. A statement was also made on behalf of the society that the termination of the agreement with the Petitioners as well as the appointment of any new builder or developer would be subject to the approval of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.

4. On 18 September 2009 the Municipal Corporation issued Annexure II by which it certified the slum dwellers who were eligible to participate in the Scheme, being occupants prior to the cut off date of 1 January 1995. Annexure II states that in the censused slum of 1976, there were 500 eligible slum dwellers of which 462 representing 92.4% had consented to the scheme. On 25 February 2010 a meeting was convened of the general body of both the cooperative societies on the direction of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (the Third Respondent). A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by the Petitioners in order to challenge the notice convening the meeting. A Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 4 October 2010 disposed of the Petition with the observation that the meeting had only been called to ascertain and decide as to which of the two developers had the consent and support for the development of th