The validity of General Body Resolutions (GBRs) for Slum Rehabilitation Scheme implementation is upheld, emphasizing that technical objections do not warrant interference unless clear illegality is established.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, Petition is taken up for hearing.

2. By this petition, the Petitioners challenge order dated 12 January 2021 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (CEO/SRA) as well as the order dated 5 April 2024 passed by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC).

3. The petition concerns implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) on Plot No. 881, Mahim, TPS No. IV, Calcutta Wala Chawl, S.K. Bole Marg, near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Dadar (W), Prabhadevi, Mumbai. The Petitioners' grievance is that false and fabricated documents in the form of General Body Resolution (GBR) dated 4 April 2011 and 24 April 2012 were brought into existence and were notarised on 31 July 2012, which commenced the process of land acquisition for the purpose of implementation of the subject SRS. According to Petitioners the said GBRs are fabricated by erroneously showing names of bogus persons, who physically do not have any slum structure on the subject plot. It is Petitioners' case that Respondent No. 3-Developer was shown to have been illegally appointed on the strength of the said Resolutions dated 4 April 2011 and 24 April 2012. According to Petitioners since the very appointment of Respondent No. 3-Developer as per the said Resolutions is ab initio void, the subject SRS cannot be implemented through proposal submitted by Respondent No. 3. It is alleged that Petitioner No. 1 has been raising grievances in respect of erroneous implementation of the subject SRS through Respondent No. 3- Developer by fabricating the resolutions, consent letters, etc. and that authorities have not paid any heed to the repeated complaints made by Petitioner No. 1.

4. The further grievance of Petitioners is in respect of the GBR subsequently adopted on 23 October 2019, in which appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Developer has been confirmed. According to Petitioners, the said General Body Meeting (GBM) of 23 October 2019 was clandestinely conducted without issuing any notice to the structure occupiers on the subject plot. According to Petitioners, it is a mandatory requirement under instructions issued in Form-16 appended to circular/order dated 12 November 2013 of CEO/SRA to publish notice of holding GBM in local newspapers in Marathi and Hindi language 7 days prior to holding of the meeting. Inviting my attention to the response received to the query raised under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Petitioners contend that no such notice was issued in newspapers in respect of alleged GBM held on 23 October 2019. That no police protection was sought for the said GBM which again is a mandatory requirement under the instructions issued by CEO/SRA. Petitioners therefore contend that the GBM of 23 October 2019 itself is illegal and cannot be acted upon.

5. So far as Resolution adopted by the General Body in the meeting held on 23 October 2019 is concerned, it is sought to be contended that several persons, whose names are not included in Annexure-II were permitted to participate in the meeting and their votes were counted for the purpose of showing majority support to implementation of subject SRS through Respondent No. 3. With the above grievances the Petitioners had filed Writ Petition (L) No. 28070 of 2020 before this Court, which came to be withdrawn on 3 November 2020 with liberty to file a fresh representation to CEO/SRA to challenge legality and validity of proposal for redevelopment of subject plot. It appears that in pursuance of the liberty so granted by this Court, a representation was addressed to CEO/SRA, who proceeded to reject the same by order dated 12 January, 2021. The said decision of CEO/SRA was unsuccessfully contested by Petitioners before AGRC, which has rejected Petitioners' application by order dated 5 April 2024. Aggrieved by the decisions of the CEO/SRA and AGRC, Petitioners have filed th