High Court held that Slum Redevelopment Authority failed to give sufficient reasons for declaring petitioner ineligible, directed a fresh hearing within three months, and continued interim relief.
Directed SRA to give fresh hearing, pass reasoned order within three months, and continue interim relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO. 64 OF 2006
Kirti Kishore Kadam.
] .. Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Maharashtra & 6 ors.] .. Respondents
Mr. S.S. Joshi for the petitioner.
Mr. M. More, AGP, for the respondents No.1, 4 and 5.
Mrs. S. Ajit Kumar for the respondent No.2.
Mr. G.D. Uttangale for respondent No.3.
Mr. B.B. Parekh for respondent No.6.
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO &
ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
DATED: 08TH MARCH, 2006
P.C. :
.By consent, heard finally.
2.Petitioner is claiming to be a slum dweller.
By the impugned order dated 12th August, 2005, passed by
respondent No.3 the Slum Redevelopment Authority [SRA]
and notice dated 5th January, 2006, issued by respondent
No.4, petitioner has been declared ineligible to claim
the benefit of Slum Rehabilitation Project on Plot
: 2 :
No.108 and 109, TPS V, Sant Janabai Marg, Mori Tabela
No.2, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai.
3.After considering the averments made in the
Writ Petition filed on 20th January, 2006, we are of the
view that the concerned respondents have failed to give
sufficient reasons on merit while rejecting the
entitlement of the petitioner.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner has
pointed out a common order dated 24th January, 2006,
passed in the Writ Petitions filed by the similarly
situated slum dwellers whereby the matters have been
remitted back to the respondents for consideration
afresh by following the principles of natural justice.
The petitioner also belongs to the same locality and is
claiming the accommodation under the same SRA Scheme.
Respondent No.6, a developer, was also respondent in
those Writ Petitions.
5.In view of this background we are of the view
that respondent No.3 (SRA) should give fresh hearing to
the petitioner and pass reasoned order after taking into
consideration all the relevant documents which will be
produced by the parties and adjudicate their rights
accordingly, as expeditiously as possible and within
: 3 :
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
6.Parties are directed to appear before the
respondent No.3-SRA on 16th March, 2006, for fixing the
date of hearing.
7.The interim relief granted by this Court on
30th January, 2006, in terms of prayer clause (b) shall
be continued till the above directed order is passed by
respondent No.3-SRA.
8.It is needless to mention that relief is
restricted only to the petitioner.
9.In view of the above, Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
[F.I. REBELLO, J.]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was given sufficient reasons for being declared ineligible for the Slum Rehabilitation Project.
Kirti Kishore Kadam
State of Maharashtra
Slum Redevelopment Authority
Respondent No.4
Respondent No.6
F.I. Rebello
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court