M.S. SONAK, J.

1. Rule. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, Rule is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission itself.

2. By this petition, the Petitioner questions its removal as the developer of the property bearing CTS 7627, 7627/1 to 852 of village Kole Kalyan at Santacruz (E), Mumbai hereinafter referred to as the said property.

3. The property in question is owned by Respondent No. 3 i.e. Om Namo Sujlam Suflam Cooperative Housing Society (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”). The Society had appointed the Petitioner i.e. Susme Builders Private Limited as a “developer” to execute Slum Rehabilitation Project under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Slum Act'). The appointment was approved by the authorities under the Slum Act, subject to certain terms and conditions. The Respondent No. 1 i.e. the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, hereinafter referred to as “CEO, SRA” by an order dated 24.02.2012 removed the petitioner as the developer. The Respondent No.2 i.e. the High Power Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'HPC'), upheld the order dated 24.02.2012. The Petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to set aside those two orders.

4. The matter has a chequered history and reference to the facts would be necessary for the purposes of appreciating the various issues which arise in the present petition.

5. The said property was declared as 'Slum' under Section 4 of the Slum Act on 16.08.1977 and thereafter again on 7.12.1983.

6. By Special General Body Resolution dated 15.09.1985, the Society resolved to appoint the Petitioner as developer to develop the said property. In pursuance thereof, the Petitioner and the Society entered into an agreement dated 27.02.1986. In terms of this agreement, the Petitioner undertook development of the said property on 'as is where is basis' and with knowledge that the said property was affected by certain reservations and encumbrances. The Petitioner, committed to complete said development by providing each of the 800 members of the Society, residential tenements admeasuring 240 sq. ft within a period of five years. Pursuant thereto the Society executed a Power of Attorney dated 7.4.1986 in the Petitioner's favour.

7. The Petitioner entered into individual agreements with about 620 out of the total number of 800 members/ occupants of the Society, committing the allotment of tenements to them within a period of five years.

8. Between the years 1986 and 1992, factually there was no construction or development in or upon the said property. The first permission for such development under Section 8(4) of the Slum Act, was itself obtained on 09.10.1992. There is a dispute between the Society and the Petitioner, as to who is to blame for the same. But the fact remains that no construction or development took place during the said period. The Petitioner attributes the delay to a Public Interest Litigation challenging the reservations on inter alia on the said property in the Development Plan. The Petitioner's case is that it took considerable time to have the property dereserved. The Petitioner obtained permission for redevelopment only on 9.10.1992.

9. The Development Control Regulation (DCR 1991) providing for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRD Scheme) came into force with effect from 20.03.1991. The DCR 1991 traces its statutory base to Section 22(m) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTP Act) The development in terms of DCR 1991 held out greater benefits, to both, the Petitioner and the Society as compared to development in terms of approvals obtained under Section 8(4) of the Slum Act. Therefore, in order to avail the same, further process was initiated by the Petitioner and the Society.

10. A Special General Body Meeting of the Society was held on 30.10.1994, which was attended, by about 123 out of