S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. :-

1. Respondent No. 1 is the Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (hereinafter referred to as "SRA"), respondent No. 2 is the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, SRA, respondent No.3 is the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "MHADA"), respondent No.4 is Aman (Kurla) SRA Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed), respondent No. 5 is a firm of developers M/s. Dani Builders and Developers and respondent No. 6 is the Vinoba Bhavc Co­operative Housing Society (Proposed).

2. The petitioners have challenged a show cause-notice dated 7th June, 2010. an order dated 28th September, 2010 passed by the SRA and an order dated 21st May, 2011. passed by the High Power Committee (hereinafter referred to as "HPC"). By the order dated 28th September, 2010, passed under section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 , the SRA terminated the petitioners appointment as the developer and granted respondent No.4 - Aman (Kurla) SRA Co­operative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as "the society'1), liberty to appoint a new developer by determining the expenses incurred by the petitioners for implementation of the scheme. The HPC, by the order dated 2 1 st May, 201 1, dismissed the petitioners' appeal against the order of the SRA dated 28th September, 2010.

3. On 23rd February, 2006, the petitioners had submitted a proposal for the implementation of a slum rehabilitation scheme, The competent authority issued Annexure-11 on 21st June, 2006. The scheme was approved on 20th May, 2009. The SRA, by a report dated 20th May, 2009, recommended approval to process the petitioners proposal. The approval of the letter of intent stated that 93 out of 105 i.e. 88.57 percent of the eligible slum dwellers had consented to the scheme by passing resolution for the implementation thereof. These eligible slum dwellers had formed respondent No.4 -Aman (Kurla) SRA Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed). The approval of the letter of intent also referred to an access to be provided. It referred to the Chief Promoter of the society having applied to MHADA for the right of access to the scheme plot from a proposed DP road and to allow the right of access for ten years on certain terms and conditions. Accordingly, the approval of the letter of intent recommended the petitioners scheme being approved subject to the condition that a lease agreement for a right of access should be insisted upon before development permission of the rehabilitation building. It was also recommended that a condition ought also to be incorporated in the draft letter of intent to obtain an extension for the lease beyond ten years after its expiry. Clause 19 of the approval of letter of intent stipulated that the premium would be recovered as per the office circular No.88 as the land belonged to MHADA,

4. Prima facie, there was, in the first instance itself therefore, considerable delay from the time when the petitioners submitted the proposal on 23rd February, 2006, to the approval of the letter of intent on 20th May, 2009. The petitioners explanation for this is that the Annexure-II was issued only on 14th August, -2006. Ms. Iyer, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners relied upon a letter dated 15th May, 2008 to explain the delay in the payment of premium which was also expressly referred to in the approval of the letter of intent. It appears that the Deputy Engineer of the SRA had, by a letter dated 8th May, 2008, cal led upon the petitioners to pay the premium. The petitioners replied to the same by its letter dated 15th May, 2008. The petitioners agreed to the payment of the premium and requested SRA to inform them as to how the payment was to be released and whether it could be released in installments.

5. The mere issuance of the letter dated 15th May, 2008, would not indicate that there was no delay on the p