Dismissed

Sitaram Hari Gurav and Ors. v. Slum Ehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Sept 2010WP/2502/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Slum Rehabilitation Authority Letter of Intent. The court held that allowing another decision-making meeting would constitute less than the required 70% of eligible persons and disposed of the petition by directing that future occupation certificates must ensure provisions for 10-year maintenance of lifts and services.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; direction to competent authority to ensure 10-year maintenance provisions before issuing occupation certificate.

Sitaram Hari Gurav and Ors. Vs Slum… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2010)

WP.2147.10

mst

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2147 OF 2010

¶6

Sitaram Hari Gurav and others Petitioners versus Slum Rehabilitation Authority and others Respondents

¶7

Mr.Nilesh V.B.Pawaskar with Aparna D. Vhatkar and Sharvani D. Karandikar for petitioners.

¶8

Mr.J.G.Reddy for respondent no.1.

¶9

Mr.Shailesh Shah i/by Kunal Cheema for respondent no.2.

¶10

Mr.P.K.Dhakhephalkar, Sr.Adv. with G.V.Bhagwat i/by Divekar & Co. for respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶11

Mr.Milind More, AGP for respondent no.5.

¶12

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J AND DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.

¶13

DATE : 21st September 2010

¶14

PC :

¶15

The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to Letter of Intent ("LOI" for short) dated 7th June 2006 issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority ("SRA" for short) to M/s.Shivalik Ventures Pvt. Ltd. - respondent no.4 for redevelopment of the slums on the lands described in prayer clause (A) in Bandra, Mumbai.

¶16

WP.2147.10

¶17

¶18

Before narrating the grievances of the petitioners who claim to be the residents/occupants of the slum tenements, it is necessary to refer to the statements coming from Mr.Dhakephalkar, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 that the LOI dated 7th June 2006 is in respect of different housing society altogether and that as far as slum tenements occupied by the petitioners are concerned, the LOI was issued by the SRA on 20th August 2009, a copy whereof is produced with the affidavitin-reply filed on behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4 (Exhibit-A, at page 158) dated 20th September 2010.

¶19

In the memo of petition the petitioners' main grievance is that the respondent nos.3 and 4 have not obtained petitioners' consent for such rehabilitation scheme and that respondent no.2 society be directed to convene another meeting of the members of the society for taking a decision as to who should be permitted to undertake the rehabilitation scheme.

¶20

In response to a query from the Court as to whether it would make any difference to the petitioners whether the slum rehabilitation scheme for the area in question is undertaken by respondent no.4 or by any other agency, the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Pawaskar submitted that the petitioners have genuine apprehensions as to whether the petitioners would be granted permanent alternate accommodation in the same area and whether the temporary alternate accommodation will be granted in the same vicinity. He, therefore, submitted that the respondent

¶21

WP.2147.10

¶22

¶23

no.4 is going to construct a 14/15 storied building which may entail the liability to provide for lifts and other amenities with the further liability to maintain them in future. It is, therefore, submitted that on account of the aforesaid apprehensions, the petitioners are not keen to have the slum rehabilitation scheme undertaken by respondent no.4.

¶24

Mr.Shah appearing for respondent no.2 society has placed before us the minute book containing the minutes of the general body meetings of respondent no.2 society and it is submitted that the meeting was held at the relevant time on 7th February 2009 and members of the society or their near relatives had placed their respective signatures in the minute book.

¶25

Mr.Dhakephalkar, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 submits that out of 324 tenements in the above slum, the occupants of as many as 167 tenements have already vacated the tenements and those tenements are demolished and those occupants have already been provided with temporary alternate accommodation in the vicinity. Those occupants are being denied or being deprived of their right to shift to permanent alternate accommodation on account of present litigation and the disputes being raised by the petitioners. In order to allay the apprehensions of the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 submits that the petitioners will be provided with temporary alternate accommodation within a radius of 300 meters from their tenements presently occupied by them and that permanent alternate

¶26

WP.2147.10

¶27

¶28

accommodation will also be made available within a radius of 500 meters from their present accommodation. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners will not suffer any prejudice on account of slum rehabilitation scheme being undertaken by respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶29

As regards apprehensions narrated by the advocate for the petitioners about maintenance of lifts and other services to be provided, the learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 invited our attention to condition nos.50 and 63 of the LOI at Exhibit-A to the reply affidavit and also submits that the conditions imposed by the SRA and condition no.63 of the LOI will take care of all the apprehensions of the petitioners. The learned counsel also invites our attention to the order dated 14th July 2010 of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No.1530 of 2010 and connected matter wherein a reference was made to a condition identical to Condition No.63 of the LOI issued in favour of another developer.

¶30

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that out of 320 tenements in the concerned slum, as many as 167 tenements have been demolished and occupants have already been shifted to temporary alternate accommodation. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by allowing the petitioners to raise any dispute about the meeting which was held on 7th February 2009. If the petitioners are permitted to hold another meeting and if they pass a resolution for entrusting the slum rehabilitation scheme to another developer, the petitioners would be constituting less than 70% of the eligible persons who are entitled to take such a decision.

¶31

WP.2147.10

¶32

¶33

Hence, we called upon the learned counsel for the petitioners to voice all their apprehensions which can be taken care of by respondent nos.3 and 4 while implementing the slum rehabilitation scheme. In response thereto the learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 made the statements reiterated hereinabove.

¶34

As far as allocation of temporary alternate accommodation and permanent alternate accommodation is concerned, in our view, the statements made by respondent nos.3 and 4 that the said accommodations would be made available within a radius of 300 meters and 500 meters respectively from their present accommodation, appears to be quite reasonable.

¶35

As regards petitioners' concern about the difficulties likely to arise from the construction of permanent alternate accommodation, which will be a high rise building, condition nos.50 and 63 of the LOI read as under:-

¶36

"50. That you shall submit the concurrence from respective Co-op. Hsg. Societies obtained through their GBR and also submit agreement on stamp papers between societies and the developer M/s.Shivalik Ventures to undertake essential maintenance of "Electro Mechanical & Civil Works" for a period of 10 years from grant of OCC..

¶37

63. High Rise Rehab Building :

¶38

a) That you shall appoint Project Management Consultant with prior approval of Dy.Ch.Eng. (S.R.A.)/E.E. (S.R.A.) for implementation/ supervision/completion of S.R.Scheme.

¶39

b) The Project Management Consultant appointed for

¶40

WP.2147.10

¶41

¶42

the scheme shall submit quarterly progress report to Slum Rehabilitation Authority after issue of LOI.

¶43

c) That the developer shall execute tripartite Registered agreement between Developer, Society & Lift Supplying Co. or maintenance firm for comprehensive maintenance of the electro mechanical systems such as water pumps, lifts, etc. for a period of ten years from the date of issue of Occupation Certificate to the Rehabilitation/Composite building.

¶44

Entire cost shall be borne by the developer and copy of the registered agreement shall be submitted to S.R.A. for record before applying for Occupation Certificate including part O.C.

¶45

d) The third party quality auditor shall be appointed for the scheme with prior approval of Dy.Ch.Eng. (S.R.A.)/E.E. (S.R.A.) for quality audit of the building work at various stages of the S.R.Scheme.

¶46

e) That the developer shall install fire fighting system as per requirements of C.F.O. and to the satisfaction of this department. The developer shall execute tripartite Registered agreement between Developer, Society & Fire Fighting equipment supplying Co. and/or maintenance firms for comprehensive maintenance for a period of ten years from the date of issue of occupation certificate to the building.

¶47

Entire cost shall be borne by the developer and copy of the Registered Agreement shall be submitted to S.R.A. for record before applying for Occupation Certificate including part O.C.

¶48

f) That the structural design of buildings having height more than 24m. shall be got peer reviewed from another registered structural engineer/educational institute."

¶49

This Court had an occasion to deal with similar issues in Writ Petition (L) No.1530 of 2010 and after dealing with rival submissions, we had made following observations :-

¶50

WP.2147.10

¶51

¶52

"27. We do note that the condition imposed in Condition No.63 of the LOI dated 20th August 2009 provides various safeguards to the members of the society. The societies as well as their members will have the right to ensure that all the conditions of the LOI shall be duly complied with by the respondent developer.

¶53

Having observed that there are enough safeguards for the members of the society and the petitioners in particular in the terms and conditions of the LOI itself and the authorities in charge of the project being fully empowered to ensure compliance of the same, there is no reason to entertain these petitions but in order to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are made by the developer for complying with condition no.63, we direct that the competent authority, issuing occupation certificate for free sale apartments to be constructed by the developer, shall, before issuing such a certificate, ensure that the developer has made necessary provisions, not only for installation of the lits and other services in the rehabilitation apartments, but also for their maintenance for ten years as provided in condition No.63."

¶54

We accordingly dispose of this petition after recording the statements made by the learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 about allocation of temporary alternate accommodation and permanent alternate accommodation for the petitioners and also record following directions which were similar to those given in our order dated 14th July 2010 in Writ Petition (L) No.1530 of 2010 WITH Writ Petition (L) No.1213 of 2010.

¶55

We direct that the competent authority issuing occupation certificate for free sale apartments to be constructed by the developer, shall, before issuing such a certificate, ensure that the developer has made necessary provisions, not only for installation of the lifts and other services in the rehabilitation apartments, but also for their maintenance for

¶56

¶57

WP.2147.10

¶58

ten years as provided in condition No.63 of the LOI. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶59

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶60

(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)

Sitaram Hari Gurav and Ors. v. Slum Ehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Hari Gurav and Ors. v. Slum Ehabilitation Authority and 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

M/S. Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Quilon Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kamat Hotels (India) Ltd.

Sachin Y. Shetty Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jehangir Hospital and Arn. Vs Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and Ors.

P. a. Inamdar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharasahtra and Ors.

Sakshi D/O. Sharad Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.