The court upheld the termination of the Petitioners' appointment as developers, affirming that proper procedures were followed and that the Petitioners lacked standing due to project delays.

JUDGMENT :

1) By this Petition, the Petitioners seek the following reliefs:

“(a) In view of aforesaid reasoned grounds, the Petitioners submit that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction, calling upon the records and proceedings from the file of the Respondent No.2 and 7 and after going through the legality, propriety and validity of the Impugned notice dated 19/6/2019 (Exhibit ‘Z’ hereto) and any decision taken on 7^th July 2019, be pleased to quash and/or set aside the same.

(b) The Petitioners submits that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or directions against the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8 to grant opportunity to Petitioners to complete the construction of redevelopment of suit property and set aside the order dated 25/1/2016 passed by Respondent No.2 and order dated 29/4/2017 passed by Respondent No.6.

(c) The Petitioners submit that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or any writ, order or directions to Respondent No.1 & 2 and the Police Department to initiate enquiry against Respondent No.9 with regard to complaints raised by Petitioners.”

2) Mr. Lohia, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that, the Order dated 25^th January, 2016 passed by Respondent No.2 in exercise of its powers under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and the Order passed by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), Respondent No.2 and the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) are passed without following the mandatory procedure of issuance of the show cause notice. In other words, the Petitioners seek to challenge the Orders passed by the CEO, SRA and the AGRC terminating the developer under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act on the basis that the Orders are passed in excess of/beyond the jurisdiction vested in the CEO, SRA and AGRC. He argues that both the impugned Orders are passed without considering the documents on record and are thus manifestly arbitrary, discriminatory and guided by extraneous reasons.

3) Per Contra Mr. Thorat for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2-SRA and for Respondent No.6-AGRC submits that, by a detailed Order dated 11^th December 2023 this Court had directed the SRA to conduct another meeting as directed in the Order. He submitted that, such a meeting was conducted and a compliance Affidavit in that regard has been filed. The result of the said meeting was that the resolution to appoint a new developer was passed and consequently, the new developer came to be appointed.

3.1) He asserted that, the Petitioners have no locus to maintain the Petition as their appointment was terminated for inordinately delaying the project. He contended that due procedure was followed by the CEO SRA and the findings were upheld by the AGRC. In view of the aforesaid, the learned counsel submitted that the Petition be dismissed.

4) This Court by its Order dated 11^th December 2023 had kept the Petition pending only because this Court was unhappy with the manner in which the elections were held and the decision was taken. In paragraph 46 the Order stated that:

“46. If the court is satisfied with the result of the meeting, then it goes without saying that the Petitioner will be bound by the outcome. Equally the 9^th Respondent and Respondent Nos.3 to 5 will also necessarily be bound by the outcome of the meeting if the report of the SRA is accepted by the court. In other words, there is no possibility of this exercise being undergone and yet leaving the Petitioner an opportunity to argue the Petition on merits thereafter.”

5) By our Order dated 15^th April 2024 we issued directions regarding the manner in which the meeting must be held in the presence of the concerned Authorities. In the meeting, the only thing that had to be decided was, whether the Petitioners shou