DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

Rule; by consent returnable forthwith. With the consent of Counsel and at their request the Petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal.

2. The First and Second Petitioners are Chief Promoters of a proposed Cooperative Housing Society, representing slum dwellers of a plot of land bearing CTS 6/1 (part) at Mankhurd, Mumbai. The Third Petitioner is a developer. The First Respondent is also a developer appointed by the Second Respondent which is another proposed Cooperative Housing Society, representing the interest of the slum dwellers. The dispute in this case pertain to a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under DCR 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations.

3. On 15 June 2006, an application for sanctioning a slum rehabilitation scheme was submitted by the First and Second Respondents to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Annexure-I to the application provided that 1235 structures existed on the land in question. Together with the application, the First and Second Respondents annexed a slum plan and a development agreement showing a total of 1400 existing tenements. On the same day, the First and Second Respondents submitted an Architect’s certificate and a certificate of financial capacity both of which referred to the total number of slum structures as 1403. At that stage, the First and Second Respondents claimed that they had the consent of 911 slum dwellers. The application was accepted. On 17 June 2006, the application was sent for scrutiny by the Deputy Collector of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to the Additional Collector (Encroachment and Removal) for scrutiny. The Additional Collector forwarded the application in turn to the Deputy Collector. The First and Second Respondents were called upon to produce documents and on 25 July 2006, the First and Second Respondents produced a compilation of documents including inter alia the voters’ list and location plan. On 26 September 2006, the First and Second Respondents produced the consents of 1000 slum dwellers out of a total of 1350 slum dwellers.

4. The Petitioners submitted the proposal to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 13 October 2006. On 26 October 2006, a complaint was submitted by the Petitioners to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority against the First and Second Respondents. On the same day, an order was passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority recording that out of 1403 slum dwellers, the First and Second Respondents had consents of only 864 slum dwellers. Since this represented 61.58% of the slum dwellers and was less than the required consent of 70%, the proposal of the First and Second Respondents was, it was observed, required to be recorded and rejected.

5. The First and Second Respondents thereupon submitted a representation to the State Government upon which the Government called for a report from the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority by its communication dated 25 January 2007, informed the State Government that upon receipt of the proposal of the First and Second Respondents, it was found after scrutiny that the Architect had shown a total number of 1235 existing tenements out of which 870 had signed a common consent which represented 70.50% of the slum dwellers. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority, however, noted that it was found from the slum plan and from the agreement submitted by the Architect that there were actually 1400 tenements and on this basis the First and Second Respondents had consents of 65%. This being less than the required 70% consents, the proposal was recorded and rejected. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority stated in its report that subsequently on 26 September 2006 the First and Second Respondents had submitted independent agreements of occupants representing 1000 out of 1350 tenements.

6. The First and Second Respondents moved the High Power Committee constituted by the State of Maharashtra in order to challenge the order passed by the Slum Rehabilita