JUDGMENT :

NITIN JAMDAR, J.

1. The Petitioners, a developer and a proposed co-operative society of slum dwellers, have filed this writ petition challenging the decision of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to grant the slum rehabilitation scheme on C.S. No. 599 and 658 at Cuffe Parade, Mumbai admeasuring 113321.54 square meters to Respondent No. 5. Petitioners have challenged the rejection of their proposal for 7252 sq. meters out of C.S. No. 658. Petitioners have also challenged the order passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee rejecting their application challenging the orders of the Authority.

2. Dyna Estate Private Limited, Petitioner No. 1 is engaged in the business of construction and redevelopment. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha (Proposed), Petitioner No. 2-is a proposed Co-operative housing society stated to be formed by slum dwellers residing on the plot C.S. No. 658(97/B). The Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the authorities and officers of Slum Rehabilitation Authority constituted under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance And Redevelopment) Act, 1971, the Slum Act. Precaution Properties Private Limited, the Respondent No. 5, a subsidiary of Shappoorji Pallonji Limited, is a developer whose proposal for implementing the slum rehabilitation scheme on plot Nos. 599 and 685 is accepted. Respondent No. 6 is Cuffe Parade SRA Co-operative Housing Society Federation (Proposed), which has appointed Respondent No. 5 as a developer. Respondent No. 7 is the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee.

3. The land admeasuring 113321.54 sq. meters on C.S. Nos. 599 and 658 at Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai is owned by the State Government. A large number of slum dwellers are residing on these plots. After a decision was taken for an integrated slum rehabilitation scheme of this area, several proceedings filed by different parties have ensued in the last decade and a half. Details of all the proceedings are not necessary. Proceedings have been narrated chronologically only to give a backdrop to the impugned orders. Later, we have culled out the specific facts in the context of the submissions of the parties.

4. For the sake of simplicity of narration, the Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 have been referred as ‘Petitioners’ unless otherwise specifically required. Respondent No. 5- Precaution Properties Private Limited and Respondent No. 6-Cuffe Parade SRA CHS Federation (Proposed) are joint in their interest for implementing the scheme and for the purpose narration, reference is only made to ‘Precaution’. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority is referred to as ‘SRA’. The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee is referred to as ‘the Apex Committee’. The requirement of consent of 70% of eligible slum dwellers is referred to as ‘70% consent’. Letter of Intent is referred to as ‘LOI’. The Chief Executive Officer of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority is referred to as ‘CEO.’ The submission of slum rehabilitation scheme is referred to as ‘proposal’.

5. The starting point for narration of facts is the proposal submitted by one Plymouth Construction Private Limited to Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority on 30 July 2004 for development of the plots in question. The Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority, MMRDA, informed Plymouth Construction to get the details of the slum dwellers from the Deputy Collector (Enc./Rem.), the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority found that 2360 slum dwellers were eligible for rehabilitation. On 17 July 2009, it was decided that the proposal of Plymouth Construction cannot be considered by MMRDA and needs to be forwarded to the SRA. In the meanwhile, the proposals were submitted to the SRA by other developers such as Home Land Creators on 8 February 2000, Sneh Developers on 22 May 2009, Doshi Darshan Group on 9 September 2009 and Shree Lekha Enterprise on 28 October 2009. Since the SRA was considering other proposals, Plymouth Construction applied to the Ap