IMPORTANT POINT
[The court established that under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, the Competent Authority can terminate a developer's appointment based on its satisfaction regarding compliance with redevelopment plans and timelines, and that such actions do not require a formal application from the society.]

JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner-Developer has fled this petition challenging the Order dated 8 April 2024 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC), rejecting Petitioner's Application No. 228 of 2023 and upholding the Order dated 28 August 2023 passed by Chief Executive Ofcer, SRA (CEO/SRA) terminating Petitioner's appointment as Developer under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slum Act).

2. The petition concerns implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) in respect of Plot bearing Survey No. 41, CTS No.1 (Pt.) of Village-Oshiwara, Taluka-Andheri, Anand Nagar, Jogeshwari West, Mumbai- 400 012. It appears that one M/s. Hridaya Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (Hridaya) was appointed by the slum dwellers, through their Society named Sarvodaya Residence SRA CHS (Proposed), as Developer for implementation of SRS on the plot. It appears, Society also adopted a Resolution in its General Body on 25 March 2018 resolving to cancel the appointment of Hridaya and to appoint Petitioner as new Developer to implement the subject SRA. Accordingly, on Society's application, CEO/SRA initiated action for termination of appointment of Hridaya under provisions of Section 13(2) of the Slum Act and passed order dated 26 June 2018 terminating the appointment of Hridya and granting liberty to Society to implement the SRS through Petitioner as per provisions of prevailing law, rules and regulations.

3. Petitioner was accordingly appointed as a developer for implementation of subject SRS by letter dated 13 July 2021. Letter dated 1 August 2022 was submitted on the letterhead of Respondent No.3-Society, which was signed by 31 plus 7 persons seeking termination of appointment of Petitioner under the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Slum Act inter-alia on the ground that despite its appointment in the year 2018, Petitioner did not make any progress in the scheme.

4. The CEO/SRA initiated proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act in which Petitioner was heard. However, it appears that the Chief Promoter of Respondent No.3-Society submitted letter dated 6 July 2023 before CEO/SRA questioning the authority of persons to address letter dated 1 August 2022 on Society's letterhead and requested for rejection of the application. CEO/SRA, after hearing parties, passed order dated 28 August 2023 allowing the application and terminated the appointment of Petitioner as Developer to implement the subject SRS. The Joint Registrar/SRA has been directed to hold the General Body meeting for appointment of Chief Promoter and other promoters of the Society. The Society has been granted liberty to appoint new developer of its choice.

5. Aggrieved by CEO/SRA's order dated 28 August 2023, Petitioner fled Application No. 228/2023 before AGRC. During pendency of the application, AGRC stayed the order of CEO/SRA. After hearing parties, AGRC has proceeded to dismiss Petitioner's application.

6. Petitioner has accordingly fled the present petition challenging Orders passed by AGRC and CEO/SRA. By order dated 17 April 2024, this Court has continued the stay granted by AGRC.

7. I have heard Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. He would question the locus of signatories to the application dated 1 August 2022 to maintain an action seeking termination of appointment of Petitioner. He would submit that Society's Chief Promoter, alone can represent it, who did not seek termination of Petitioner and infact sought dismissal of application fled by unauthorised persons. Relying on judgment of Division Bench in Nirman Realtors and Developers Ltd. Versus Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 9201 he would submit that slum dwellers in their individual capacity cannot seek termination of developer under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act.

8. He would submit that the CEO/SRA has erred in terminating the appointment of Petitioner without appreciating the fact that there has been no del