Disposed

Matrukrupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Jun 2008WP/1663/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the High Powered Committee constituted in a related judgment to treat the writ petition as a representation to consider the challenge to the termination of the development agreement on merits. The court noted that respondent no.6 had not yet received a commencement certificate and left all contentions regarding interim relief and jurisdiction open.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to approach the High Powered Committee to challenge the impugned order on merits; no interim or ad-interim order is passed at this stage.

of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12th April, 2007 which has been passed by the Additional Collector (ENC), Mumbai. The said order has been passed, according to the petitioner, pursuant to the show cause notice issued under section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Area ( Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,1971. The order terminates the permission and sanction granted by SRA to the petitioner. Thus, the Development Agreement

2. After the matter was argued for some time and the attention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner was invited to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Tulsiwadi Navnirman Coop.Housing Society Ltd. and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2008(1) Bom.C.R.1. In all fairness he states that the petitioner would approach the High Powered Committee stipulated therein and request the said Committee to consider the challenge which is raised in this writ petition. However, Mr.Thorat submits that the petitioner apprehends that the contesting respondent may question the jurisdiction of High Powered Committee and, therefore, appropriate clarification be issued.

3. Mr.Subramaniam, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.5 and Mr.Mehta learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.6 state that when the matter is taken up by the High Powered Committee, the said respondents will not raise the issue of jurisdiction of the High Powered Committee to decide the claim of the petitioner. They state that they have no objection if the same is decided on merits. They request that all issues and contentions as far as merits are concerned be kept open. In the light of this statement by Mr.Subramaniam and Mr.Mehta, petitioner’s apprehension is not well founded. High

Powered Committee shall treat the present writ petition as a representation/application of the petitioner to challenge the decision dated 12th April, 2007 and consider the case of the petitioner on merits. Needless to state that High Powered Committee will grant opportunity to all the respondents before this Court before it decides the case/claim on merits and all pleas of both sides in that behalf are kept open. The respondents shall not raise the issue of jurisdiction of High Powered Committee.

5. After taking instructions Mr.Mehta appearing for respondent no.6 makes a statement that all that respondent no.6 has done presently is to apply to the concerned authorities for issuance of the development permission/commencement certificate and the said application is still not granted. In other words, the commencement certificate is not issued. Mr.Mehta makes a statement that as and when commencement certificate is received by respondent no.6 he would inform the petitioner within 10 days from the receipt of such commencement certificate and thereupon the petitioner can make appropriate application.

there is no question of any ad-interim or interim order being passed at this stage. It would be open for the petitioner to make appropriate application in case it seeks interim or ad-interim reliefs either before or after commencement certificate is issued and even the contentions in that behalf of both sides are kept open. Petition is disposed of. No costs. 7 In case the

contesting respondents wish to place any additional reply and documents they are at liberty to do so and High Powered Committee to accept the same. In addition, High Powered Committee to consider the record of this writ petition as well. Needless to state that the petitioner would be at liberty to file an application for interim relief/stay of all construction activities and/or issuance of commencement certificate and merely because the statement of respondent no.6 is recorded by this Court does not mean that the petitioner is precluded from making such application or that High Powered Committee cannot consider the same.

Matrukrupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Matrukrupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parasaram G. Purohit Vs Kaniyalal P. Maru

Bank of Baroda Vs Kirit Indulal Khatadia

Rasiklal Shah Vs Harshad Parekh

Rupee Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Shriram Narayan Shastri

M/S.Dave Brothers Vs Shri Balu S.Korde and Anr.

Lloyds Steel Industries Vs Parasram Purohit