2014 Supreme(Bom) 1993

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Mohit S. Shah, M.S. Sonak, JJ.
The Reserve Bank Employees - Appellants
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 91 of 2002
Decided On: 30.09.2014

Headnote:Constitution of India - Article 226 Plea as to delay and laches. - Where order of High Court, dismissing a writ petition on ground of delay and laches was set aside by Apex Court and matter was remanded therefore on remand issue of delay and laches cannot be entertained. In any case, as observed by the Supreme Court itself, the delay, if any, in the present case was not really of 18 months, as was made out to be, by the respondents, but rather the same was hardly 6 months. After the issuance of the impugned notification dated 7 April 2000, the petitioner once again approached the Authorities with a request that the acquisition be dropped. The petitioner also pointed out several infirmities in the matter of project proposal submitted by respondent No. 8, particularly concerning compliances with various requisitions of the SRA and other Development Authorities. The petitioner’s representations were not favourably considered, however by order dated 12th January, 2001, compensation for acquisition of the said property was determined by respondent No. 2 at Rs. 30,960/- Further on 25th May, 2001, the corrigendum was issued to the notification dated 7th April, 2000. As noted earlier, this petition came to be instituted in October 2001. On this basis, even the Supreme Court has observed that the delay, if any, was only for a period of 6 months. Further, at the site no development has taken place. Since all these circumstances are required to be cumulatively considered, clearly there is no merit in the objection based upon delay and laches.

       Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - Section 14(1) Acquisition of property by State. - When malice is attributed to State is exercise of power under Section 14(1) of Act then acquisition proceedings stand vitiated. - The case of acquisition of suit property initiated by state under Section 14(1) of the Act, does not appear to be aimed at execution of any works of improvement or development of slum area per se, but rather to enable respondent builder to develop the said property for commercial gains, notwithstanding the Civil Courts finding no prima facie merit in his no claim, against the petitioner/owner of the suit property for the development of the said property. When malice is attributed to the State, it may not be a case of personal ill will or spite on the part of the State.

       Suffice that power is exercised for some collateral or oblique purpose. Suffice that the Authorities who are the custodians of power are influenced in its exercise by considerations other than that for which the power is vested in them, in the first place. Suffice that in the exercise of power, the Authority is swayed by extraneous considerations, quite irrelevant to the entrustment. Suffice, if the exercise of power is designed to the attainment of ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of power by simulation or pretension of gaining a legitimate goal. In such circumstances, the impugned acquisition proceedings stand vitiated and are liable to be struck down.

       Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 - Section 14(1) Acquisition of property for redevelopment. - Acquisition for redevelopment of slum area being swayed by irrelevant considerations and subjective satisfaction of State authorities, is illegal. - Normally, events subsequent to the acquisition proceedings may not be relevant for the purposes of determining whether the very initiation of acquisition proceedings was legally infirm or not. But in the present case, such circumstances assume relevance, because we are satisfied from the material on record that the present acquisition proceedings were at the behest of respondent No. 8 and for the purpose of promoting his personal interest. After completion of the acquisition proceedings, the SRA by letter dated 18th April, 2001 called upon respondent No. 8 to comply with the following :

       1. Certification of Annexure II;

       2. Submission of layout plan as contemplated by DCR 33(10);

       3. Submission of D.P. Remarks;

       4. Submission of agreement between petitioner and respondent No. 8;

       5. Submission of NOC from Civil Aviation Authorities.

       At least by 28 February 2002, respondent No. 8 had not complied with the requisitions contained in SRA’s letter dated 18th April, 2001. Therefore, by letter dated 28 February, 2002, SRA called upon respondent No. 8 to comply with the requisitions within 15 days, failing which the proposal of respondent No. 8 for development of the said property would be recorded. There is no material produced on record by respondent No. 8 to establish that the requisitions were indeed complied with by it. In the aforesaid context, the affidavit made by the Chief Promoter of respondent No. 9 i.e. the association representing the slum dwellers on 2 February 2014 assumes importance. In this affidavit, the Chief Promoter of respondent No. 9 has stated that there is no subsisting agreement between themselves and respondent No. 8. Respondent No. 8, had approached respondent No. 9 and the individual slum dwellers, with a proposal that it would develop the said property expeditiously and that respondent No. 9 and individual slum dwellers ought not to give their individual consents to the petitioner. Ultimately, respondent No. 8 reneged upon its commitments and. further failed even to comply with the requisitions of the SRA, as contained in its letter dated 18 April 2001 due to which the proposal of respondent No. 8 for redevelopment had been recorded. As a result of such misleading and incapacity on the part of respondent No. 8, the project has been hampered for over 10 years. In such circumstances, respondent No. 9 has lost confidence in respondent No. 8 and it is agreeable to the petitioner implementing the scheme under DCR 33 (10).

       The aforesaid subsequent developments also establish that the acquisition proceedings were essentially at the behest of and for the promotion of private interest of respondent No. 8. There was no public purpose as such involved in the entire exercise. In any case, the Authorities under the Slum Act, prior to exercise of powers under Section 14(1) failed to advert to vital and relevant considerations. Instead they permitted themselves to be swayed by irrelevant considerations. In such circumstances, the impugned acquisition proceedings stand vitiated and are liable to be struck down.