The court upheld the validity of ongoing proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act, affirming that the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity to present its case and that the impugned decisions were merely recommendations.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition, alleging that the manner in which the impugned minutes of decisions dated 07.10.2024 and 15.07.2024, as also the order dated 11.10.2024, have been issued by the respondents, demonstrates that the respondent-State and statutory authorities have already taken a decision to terminate the appointment of the petitioner as developer for redevelopment of a particular piece and parcel of plot, rendering a proceeding pending under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as a mere formality, thereby violating the valuable rights vested in the petitioner. It is alleged that respondent Nos.4 to 8 have acted in concert with the said statutory authorities i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 3, to illegally benefit respondent No.9, the developer, who is sought to be brought in by the said respondents in a clandestine manner to take over the redevelopment project.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that initially, only the final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 were challenged in the present petition because of willful suppression of material facts by respondent No.1-State from this Court. It was only when documents were obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the RTI Act) that the impugned minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and order dated 11.10.2024 came to light, requiring the petitioner to extensively amend the present petition, in order to further demonstrate the arbitrary and malicious conduct of respondents.

3. The petitioner was appointed as developer under the Act for redevelopment of all those pieces and parcels of plots bearing CTS No.1322/1 (pt) of village Versova and some adjoining land, which entailed redevelopment for the benefit of 259 slum dwellers, who were members of four societies i.e. respondent Nos.4 to 8. Development agreements were executed between the petitioner and the said societies in the years 2004/2005.

4. On 28.11.2006, the competent authority under the Act issued Annexure-II for the societies, as they had consented for the petitioner to be the developer. Subsequently, on 02.09.2011, Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued by respondent No.2-Slum Rehabilitation Authority (hereinafter referred to as the SRA) in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, despite issuance of LOI, the redevelopment scheme could not be implemented due to certain activities undertaken by respondent No.7-society in collusion with a developer Skyscraper Realty Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as SRPL), who is applicant in Interim Application (Lodging) No.35812 of 2024.

5. On 23.11.2016, upon deposit of land premiums, respondent No.2-SRA issued Intimation of Approval (IOA) on 21.12.2016. The petitioner submits that no objection certificate for height clearance was obtained from Airports Authority of India on 30.09.2019, which is valid upto 29.09.2027. It is claimed that due to change in Development Regulation from DCR 1991 to DCPR 2034, the petitioner was constrained to file an application for revising/conversion of the proposal under DCPR 2034. The petitioner also filed an application for revised LOI and amendment of IOA on 21.12.2019, which is still pending. The petitioner claims that although there had been delay in execution of the redevelopment project, the delay is not attributable to the petitioner.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3-Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of respondent No.2-SRA, on 30.09.2022, on a complaint made by a third party, directed the petitioner to obtain fresh IOA and not to initiate any construction at the site, by cancelling the IOA, which was already issued. The petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.5116 of 2022 before this Court, challenging the said order.

7. On 01.12.2022, the Division Bench of this Court quashed and set aside aforesaid o