JUDGMENT :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

Prelude

1. This is a case of a sizable chunk of State Government's land, abutting the sea situated at Mahim within the Mahim Bay at Mumbai, occupied by slums. The Government however is nowhere in the scene, either to remove the slums or to rehabilitate the slum dwellers. Eventually the slum dwellers stepping into the shoes of their sentinel, decided to redevelop this land by appointing a developer in 2006. Thereafter, it has been rounds and rounds of litigation before different forums and twice before this Court. The reason being obvious, there being two groups of slum dwellers and two rival developers, having strong commercial interest considering the nature of the land and probably its proximity to the sea. The Government as also the different authorities under it, in the scheme of things, seem to be silent spectators, to the happenings between the slum dwellers and different developers. It is a sorry state of affairs for the slum dwellers, when their genuine interest stand superseded by extraneous interest.

It, however, needs to be acknowledged that the ingenuity of the parties and prolixity has sprouted some legal issues, a legal appetite at the bar and surely in the circumstances, not a very heartening task for the Court, albeit the erudition and scholarship at the bar in arguing these issues.

Challenge

2. These are two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition no.2349 of 2018 is filed by New Janta SRA CHS Ltd. challenging two orders, first impugned order being an order dated 17 May 2016 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short 'the CEO-SRA') rejecting its application for change of developer made under Section 13(2) of the Maharahstra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short 'the Slums Act'). This order of the CEO- SRA was challenged by the petitioner before the Apex Grievances Redressal Committee, constituted under the Slums Act (for short 'the AGRC"). By the second impugned order dated 11 January 2018, the AGRC has confirmed the order passed by the CEO SRA rejecting the petitioner's application no.110 of 2016 as also dismissed petitioner's another application whereby the petitioner had inter-alia prayed that the Letter of Intent (for short 'the LOI') issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short 'the SRA') in favour of respondent no.5-Shree Nidhi Concept Relators Pvt. Ltd., as the developer for the slums scheme, be set aside.

3. The second petition (Writ Petition no.2285 of 2018) is filed by M/s.SLK Buildcon Pvt.Ltd., the new developer who was appointed by the petitioner-New Janta, to replace Respondent No. 5, who has also challenged the said impugned orders of the CEO-SRA and the orders as passed by the AGRC, as challenged in the first petition. The challenge in both these proceedings being common, these petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

Petitioner's Case

4. The factual antecedents giving rise to the dispute between the parties as contended by the petitioner are required to be noted. For convenience, reference is made to the facts, on record of the petition filed by New Janta SRA Co-op. Housing Society Ltd (proposed). The parties are referred as arrayed in the said writ petition.

5. The petitioner- New Janta SRA Co-op. Housing Society Ltd (proposed) is a society formed by the slum dwellers on the land in question. Respondent no. 5- Shree Nidhi Concept Relators Pvt. Ltd is company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, and was appointed by the petitioner as a developer to undertake the slum rehabilitation scheme, for the petitioner. Respondent No. 7 is- SLK Buildcon Pvt Ltd who is sought to be appointed by the petitioner to replace respondent no. 5. Respondent no 8 and 9 are also proposed cooperative societies of the slum dwellers on t