Dismissed

Om Shri Sai Developers v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC17 Mar 2010WP/130/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition by a developer challenging the High Power Committee and S.R.A. orders terminating their agreement in favor of another developer. The court held that disputes involve factual/contractual aspects requiring civil suit remedies, and writ jurisdiction is not appropriate to quash the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed; the rule is discharged. No interference with the orders of the High Power Committee and S.R.A.

Om Shri Sai Developers Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORIGINAL SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.130 OF 2010

¶4

M/s. Om Shree Sai Developers,
a Partnership Firm registered
under the Indian Partnership
Act, 1932, having its
address at Shop No.30, Veena
Nagar, L.B.S. Marg, Opp:
Gabriel Limited, Mulund(W),
Mumbai-400 080..... Petitioner

¶5

- Versus -

¶6

1. State of Maharashtra
 through the Secretary,
 Housing Department,
 Mantralaya,
 Mumbai-400 032.

¶7

2. Slum Rehabilitation
 Authority through its
 Chief Executive Officer,
 having its office at
 5th Floor, Griha Nirman
 Bhavan, Bandra (East),
 Mumbai-400 051.

¶8

3. Shree Pandit Co-operative
 Society (Prop.), through
 its Secretary, having
 its address at Manubhai
 Chawl, Shastri Nagar,
 Bal Rajeshwari Road,
 Mulund (West),
 Mumbai-400 080.

¶9

4. M/s. Shree Siddhi Vinayak
 Construction Company,

¶10

¶11

 having its office at 2/3,
 Moti Baug Lane, Navroji
 Lane, Ghatkopar (West),
 Mumbai-400 086.

¶12

5. Chairman and Members of
 The High Power Committee
 constituted by Respondent
 No.1 functioning from
 Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶13

.... Respondents

¶14

S/Shri P.A. Sawant with K.R. Khatta
i/b N.R. Gandhi for the Petitioner.
Shri D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader,
for Respondent Nos.1 and 5.
Shri G.D. Utangale i/b Utangale & Co.
for Respondent No.2.
S/Shri V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate
i/b Abhay Parab for Respondent No.3.
Shri V.H. Kamdi for Respondent No.4.

¶15

CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND
 A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.

¶16

DATED: MARCH 17, 2010

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.P. Bhangale, J.):

¶18

1.Heard. Rule. Learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respective
respondents waive notice. By consent, rule is
made returnable forthwith.

¶19

2.The petitioner-developer seeks to
invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court under

¶20

¶21

Article 226 of the Constitution of India for,
to quash and set aside the order dated
18-7-2009 passed by High Power Committee of the
Government of Maharashtra in Application No.824
of 2008. The petitioner had challenged the
order dated 4-3-2008 passed by the Chief
ExecutiveOfficer,SlumRehabilitation
Authority whereby the S.R.A. directed further
implementation of the slum rehabilitation
scheme by another developer M/s. Shree Siddhi
Vinayak Construction Company (respondent No.4
herein). The High Power Committee has
dismissed the appeal by the petitioner on the
ground that no case was made out.

¶22

3.The facts which gave rise to this
petition are mentioned as under:-

¶23

A plot of land bearing CTS No.6
(Part); 7; 7/1 to 3; 9/1 to 4; 10(Part)
admeasuring 7000 square meters at Mulund
(West), Mumbai is claimed by the petitioner.
According to the petitioner, the plot of land
was encroached by slum-dwellers who proposed
co-operative housing society (respondent No.3
herein). The S.R.A. Declared the said property
as �slum� under the S.R.D. Scheme. However, it
is claimed by the petitioner that the proposed

¶24

¶25

slum dwellers society resolved in March, 1996
to implement the S.R.D. Scheme through the
petitioner. According to the petitioner, he
had moved the S.R.A. to get the plot declared
as �slum� and promised the slum-dwellers to
provide permanent alternate accommodation as
per the scheme. In June, 1996 the plot was
declared as a slum. The petitioner claims that
he moved the S.R.A. for letter of intent, which
came to be issued by the S.R.A. on 6-1-1998.
The petitioner was granted commencement
certificate to construct D-Wing upto plinth
level being rehabilitation building. The
petitioner to accommodate the slum-dwellers in
transitcamptemporarilyconstructed
accommodation but the Chief Promoter of Shree
Pandit Co-operative Society instigated some
slum-dwellers of the society to refuse to hand
over their respective hutments and to shift to
the transit camp. The project was thus delayed
according to the petitioner. The petitioner
had agreed to allot a flat bearing Flat No.702,
admeasuring 500 sq.feet to the Chief Promoter
Mr. Putran in the proposed `Dharamveer
Apartments� to settle dispute with him.
According to the petitioner, they continued to
complete development despite odds and hurdles
but respondent No.3-Society�s committee members

¶26

¶27

intended to remove the petitioner as
builder/developer by bringing in respondent No.
4 as developer.

¶28

4.Respondent No.2 by letter dated
19-5-2000 directed the petitioner to pay C.C.
validation fees. The petitioner had executed
undertaking on stamp paper to deposit C.C. re-
validation charges. Respondent No.2 by letter
dated 6-6-2000 insisted to submit Annexure-III
to show financial capacity to carry out
construction. On 16-8-2000 the petitioner paid
re-validation fees. Respondent No.2 granted
further C.C. beyond D-Wing but obstructions
were made by some members/hirelings of
respondent No.3-Society. The S.R.A. by letter
dated 28-7-2000 called the petitioner for joint
meeting and resolved on 24-3-2000 to terminate
agreement with the petitioner. Thus respondent
No.4 was allowed further implementation of
S.R.S.. The petitioner filed Suit No.2145 of
2005 in City Civil Court aggrieved by
termination of agreement from S.R.A..

¶29

5.It appears main grievance of the

¶30

petitioner that while the construction activity
was in progress, members of respondent No.3
with support from respondent No.4, by their

¶31

¶32

mala fide acts, created physical obstructions
and hindrances and the petitioner had
complained about their high-handed activities
to respondent No.2-S.R.A., i.e., induction of
non-eligible members in the premises, etc., and
that S.R.A. (respondent no.2) had directed the
Society (respondent No.3) to decide developer
for S.R.S. and the S.R.A. decided to keep all
approvals in abeyance till the society comply
with directions as to declare names of elected
members of the society and name of the
developer and other relevant information of
S.R.S.. The petitioner had challenged the
action of S.R.A. by filing Writ Petition No.
2953 of 2004 by impleading the society and
respondent No.4 (developer). The writ petition
was disposed of by order dated 10-2-2005 by
this Court as various legal issues were
required to be heard and decided by S.R.A.
according to law. On 10-3-2005 the S.R.A.
(respondent No.2) passed order holding that the
development agreement dated 3-3-1996 of the
petitioner stood validly terminated and
directed further implementation of the S.R.S.
By M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Construction Company
(respondent No.4). The order dated 10-3-2005
passed by S.R.A. was challenged in S.C. Suit
No.2145 of 2005 filed by the petitioner in

¶33

¶34

Bombay City Civil Court, Mumbai in which
interim order was passed on 9-1-2008. The
petitioner preferred Appeal From Order No.71 of
2008 along with Contempt Petition No.36 of
2008. The matter was remitted to S.R.A. after
this Court set aside the order dated 10-3-2005
passed by S.R.A. with direction to S.R.A. to
pass reasoned order after hearing the parties.
The S.R.A. by order dated 4-3-2008 held that
M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Construction Company
(respondent No.4) should be allowed to complete
balance work of S.R.S.. In other words, the
petitioner stood excluded from further
participation in slum rehabilitation project.
The order by S.R.A. was again challenged by
Writ Petition No.3207 of 2008 which was decided
on 29-8-2008 leaving the petitioner to take
recourse to such remedy as may be available and
permissible according to law. Thus the
petitioner approached High Power Committee
constituted by respondent No.1-State. The High
PowerCommitteedecidedthe
representation/application by order dated
18-7-2009 which is sought to be impugned
herein.

¶35

6.We have heard respective counsel at
length with reference to documents and rulings

¶36

¶37

relied upon and the orders sought to be
challenged which were passed by S.R.A. and High
Power Committee.

¶38

7.TheMaharashtraSlumAreas

¶39

(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act,
1971 (hereinafter referred as �the Slum Act�)
was enacted with a view to re-house, resettle
slum-dwellers in housing colonies to ensure
health, safety, convenience of slum-dwellers
and to provide them with basic necessities like
water, sanitation, light by speedy and
effective machinery. The Competent Authority
under the Slum Act has statutory powers in the
matter of declaring the area as slum area and
to carry out improvements by approving
undertakings; requiring occupants to vacate by
offering alternate site or to remove them by
use of reasonable force if so necessary; to
allow any agency to execute work; maintenance
of repairs, collecting service charges, etc.

¶40

In Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-operative Housing
Society and another Vs. State of Maharashtra,
reported in 2007 (6) Mah.L.J. 851 (FB). It
appears clear that in disputes involving
factual aspects necessitating oral and
documentary evidence to be led, remedy by way
of a suit in competent Civil Court or

¶41

¶42

arbitration may be resorted to resolve private
or contractual disputes. Thus alternative
remedy is required to be exhausted; as disputed
facts can be decided on appreciation of
evidence {see ruling inG. Srinivas Vs.

¶43

Government of A.P. & others, reported in AIR
2005 SC 4455}. Intervention by exercise of
writ jurisdiction has to be minimum and
exceptional; in a deserving case.

¶44

8.The petitioner has alleged mala fides
on the part of the respondent-S.R.A. and the
society in the matter of termination of
agreement to develop slum area; and choice of
another developer to implement the S.R.S..
Section 41 of the Slum Act protects the
Competent Authority or any person acting under
its authority from suits/legal proceedings if
acts are done in good faith in accordance with
the Slum Act and Rules made thereunder. It
does by implication save suits; or legal
proceedings instituted for mala fide acts.
Under Section 42 of the Slum Act, the bar of
jurisdiction of Civil Court is not absolute.
As held in P.R. Murlidharan and others Vs.

¶45

Swami Dharmananda Theertha Padar and others,
reported in (2006) 4 SCC 501, jurisdiction of
Civil Court is wide and plenary and writ cannot

¶46

¶47

be a substitute for civil suit to adjudicate
civil rights. The scope of judicial review is
limited in cases involving property rights.
The disputes which are purely private or
contractual will have to be resolved by suit or
arbitration, as permissible according to law.
The learned counsel for the petitioner argued
that the High Power Committee ought to have
dealt with all questions of law by a detailed
and reasoned order. He placed reliance upon

¶48

Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. Sales Tax
Officer, Rourkela I Circle and others, reported
in (2008) 9 SCC 407. The learned counsel for
the petitioner also placed reliance upon the
ruling by this Court inM/s. Sigtia

¶49

Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors., in Original Side Writ
Petition No.1036 of 2007 and connected writ
petitions, delivered on 17-9-2009 whereby the
matter was remitted back to S.R.A.. In the
present case, the petitioner had already
approached the S.R.A. as well as the High Power
Committee constituted by the Government of
Maharashtra and the case of the petitioner
stood decided by reasoned orders. No useful
purpose can be served by making the petitioner
to approach same authorities again who have
already passed reasoned orders. Therefore, to

¶50

¶51

our mind, the rulings in Steel Authority of
India Limited and M/s. Sigtia Constructions�
case (supra) are of no assistance to the
petitioner. In our view, the jurisdiction of
issuance of high prerogative writs can be
exercised in limited and exceptionally
deserving cases wherein the High Power
Committee refused to issue direction for

¶52

expeditious implementation of S.R.S.. In our
opinion, suit against the Competent Authority
or persons acting under the Authority doing
acts in good faith is barred as the object of
the Slum Act is to speedily implement th slum
rehabilitation scheme and rehabilitate slum-
dwellers in better alternative accommodation
with basic amenities made available to them.

¶53

No suit can be entertained which may
stall/stultify the slum rehabilitation scheme
or project. The provision in Section 42 of the
Slum Act is not a blanket bar for institution
of civil suits but prohibits Civil Court from
entertaining such suits or granting injunction
in suits in respect of action taken/to be taken
in good faith in exercise of powers conferred
under the Slum Act. It is to prevent any
disgruntled, dissatisfied litigant who may, in
order to harass the Authority i.e.,
Administrator, Competent Authority or Tribunal

¶54

¶55

under the Act, resort to a long drawn out
process of suit in Civil Court and stall the
slum rehabilitation project; which has to be
expeditiously implemented in larger interest of
society or people. However, the remedy of
civil suit is not barred to seek relief against
mala fide commission or omission of acts which
are not in good faith to resolve private or
contractual disputes. The High Power Committee
constituted by the State Government has
limited role as mentioned by the Full Bench of
this Court in Tulsiwadi�s case (supra) to
speedily issue directions to resolve disputes
under the Slum Act in respect of implementation
of slum rehabilitation schemes.

¶56

9.Considering the object and purpose of
the �Slum Act�, the slum rehabilitation scheme
cannot remain at standstill status as it is
required to be expeditiously implemented
bearing in mind the intended welfare measures.
The Competent Authority under the Slum Act is
required to take early decision and issue
directions to ensure smooth implementation of
S.R.S. by overcoming obstacles or hurdles.
Disputed questions of facts, if involved, are
at the best left to be resolved by alternative
remedy i.e., for breach of contract monetary

¶57

¶58

compensation, etc.. The High Power Committee
constituted by the State Government, which was
approached by the petitioner, observed thus:

¶59

�3.Duringthecourseof
argument, the advocate for the
Applicant has not brought cogent
argument before this Committee as to
how the Order dated 4/3/2008 passed
by the CEO, SRA is bad in law.
Further the arguments advanced by the
Advocate for the Applicant are
already concluded by Order of the
Hon�ble High Court, Bombay, vide
their Order dated 29-2-2008 passed in
Writ Petition No.3207/2008 and this
Committee is not above the Order of
Hon�ble High Court.

¶60

4.Considering the arguments
advanced by the concerned parties it
seems that there is private dispute
between the two developers and
therefore the applicant is at liberty
to approach proper Court of Law.�

¶61

Therefore, the petitioner is not left
remediless. The petitioner can claim monetary
compensation by approaching the competent Civil
Court for the alleged breach of contract.

¶62

10.Bearing in mind the aforesaid settled
principles in the facts and circumstances of
the case, for the reasons stated above, we do
not find any exceptional or substantial ground

¶63

¶64

to intervene in exercise of writ jurisdiction
with orders sought to be impugned herein.

¶65

11.In the result, the petition is
dismissed. The rule is discharged.

Om Shri Sai Developers v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Shri Sai Developers v. State of Maharashtra 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

Rhone Poulenc Chemicals (India) Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Heeralal Murlidhar Chaturvedi Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Maker Chamber VI Premises Co. Operative Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Sudhir Chamanlal Narula Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Accord Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Maharashtra State Board of Waks and 5 Ors.

Mrs. Manisha Vijay Ladhani and 7 Ors. Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 3 Ors.