Dismissed

Santoshkumar Mithailal Kanojia and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 11 Ors.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2018WP/822/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dhobi societies and licenced rassi holders challenged the High Power Committee's approval of a slum rehabilitation scheme at Mahalaxmi Dhobighat, contending that the open drying area was wrongly included. Holding that the Municipal Corporation owned the land, that most rassi holders supported redevelopment and that licensees' interests were protected, the High Court dismissed all the writ petition

What the court decided

AI extract

Santoshkumar Mithailal Kanojia and Anr. Vs the… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp 1654.18.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1654 OF 2018

¶6

Dhobi Jan Vikas Sanstha Registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 through Chairman Mr.Sandip Sabhajit Choudhary Having Office at C/o Satish Kanoiya 55, Ground Floor, Mahalaxmi Dhobi Ghat Patra Shed Hanuman Mandir Marg, Saat Rasta, Mumbai 400 011. .. Petitioner Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra Through Government Pleader, Original Side, High Court, Bombay

¶8

Hon'ble High Power Committee Government of Maharashtra Off. Adminstrative Bldg., Anant Kanekar Marg Bandra (E), Mumbai 400050

¶9

3.Slum Rehabilitation Authority A statutory Authority formed under The Slum Clearance, Improvement and Redevelopment Act, 1971, having their office at Administrative Building, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 050.

¶10

Executive Engineer (City) Slum Rehabilitation Authority Off.Administrative Bldg. Anant Kanekar Marg

¶11

1/30

¶12

wp 1654.18.doc

¶13

Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 050.

¶14

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through Commissioner, having office at Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001.

¶15

Omkar Realtors Project Pvt. Ltd. A Company formed under provisions of Companies Act, 1956 having registered office At Omkar House, Off.Eastern Express Highway Sion (east), Mumbai 400 022.

¶16

Shree Saibaba Nagar SRA CHS (PROP) Through its Chief Promoter having Office at G.B.Sakpal Marg, Dhobighat, Saat Rasta, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400 011. .. Respondents

¶17

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 760 OF 2018

¶18

Jivanlal Ramganesh Kanojia, aged 56 years S/o Shri Ramganesh Kanojia, Occupation : Dhobi, presently, residing at :G-16, Agakhan Building C, Dr.E.Moses Road, Satrasta, Mumbai 400011.

¶19

Bhagwant Jayawant Kamble, aged 35 years, S/o Shri Jayawant Kamble, Room No. 606, Saibaba Nagar, G.B. Sakpal Marg, Dhobighat, Satrasta, Mumbai 400011.

¶20

Ramjanam Faujdar Jaiswar, aged 34 years, S/o Late Shri Faujdar Jaiswar, Room No. 610, Saibaba Nagar, G.B. Sakpal Marg, Dhobighat, Satrasta,

2/30

wp 1654.18.doc

Mumbai 400011

.. Petitioners

Vs.

The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra East, Mumbai.

¶27

The Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, CST, Mumbai.

¶28

Omkar Reality Projects Private Limited, a private limited company, incorporated under the Companies Act 2013, having its Registered Office at Omkar House, Off Eastern Express Highway, Opp. Sion-Chunabhatti Signal, Sion (East), Mumbai 400 022.

¶29

Saibaba Nagar SRA Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed), having its office address at G.B.Sakpal Marg, Dhobi Ghat, Satrasta, Mumbai 400 011.

¶30

.. Respondents

¶31

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 422 OF 2018

¶32

Shri Siddhiramlu Shivraj Dhobi aged about 55 years, Occupation : Dhobi (Washerman) (holding Washstone/Cubic Stone No. 185)

¶33

2.Shri Bhikshapati Malanna Raskunda Aged about 44 years, Occupation : Dhobi (Washerman) (holding Washstone/Cubic Stone No. 90) Both having their address at Bada Dhobighat, Gate No.1,

¶34

3/30

¶35

wp 1654.18.doc

¶36

Mahalaxmi Dhobighat, Dr.E'moses Road, Mahalaxmi (E), Jacob Circle, Saatrasta, Mumbai – 400 011.

¶37

.. Petitioners

¶38

Vs.

¶39

The State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader, Original Side, High Court, Bombay

¶40

The High Power Committee Government of Maharashtra, Having office at Administrative Building, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 050.

¶41

The Slum Rehabilitation Authority Statutory authority constituted Under the Slum (Clearance, Improvement and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 having its office at Administrative Building, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 050.

¶42

Executive Engineer – City Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Having his office at Administrative Building, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 050.

¶43

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through its Commissioner, Having office at Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400 001.

¶44

M/s.Omkar Realtors Projects Pvt.Ltd., A company incorporated under the provisions of Companies

¶45

4/30

¶46

wp 1654.18.doc

¶47

Act, 1956, having its office at Omkar House, Off.Eastern Express Highway, Sion (East), Mumbai 400 022.

¶48

Dhobi Audyogik Vikas Co-operative Society Ltd., A Society registered under The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 having office at Chhota Dhobighat, Gate No.3, Dr.E.Moses Road, Saat Rasta, Mumbai 400 011.

¶49

Shree Saibaba Nagar Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) Through its Chairman having office At G.B.Sakpal Marg, Dhobighat, Saat Rasta, Mumbai 400 011.

¶50

Dhobi Kalyan & Audyogik Vikas Co-operative Society Ltd., Having address at Municipal Mahalaxmi Dhobi Wadi, Dr.E.Moses Road, Jacob Circle, Mumbai 400 011.

¶51

Mahalaxmi Dhobi Vikas Seva Samiti a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1960 having office At C/o.Chetan Jagdish Pardeshi, New S.T.- 65, Ground Floor, Dhobighat, Patra Shed, Gangaram Babu Sakpal Marg, Dhobi Ghat, Saat Rasta, Jacob Circle, Mumbai 400 011.

¶52

Santosh Gaurishankar Kanojia

¶53

5/30

¶54

wp 1654.18.doc

¶55

Adult, Indian Inhabitant having address Room No. 307, Kashinath Building, Saat Rasta, Near Jacob Circle, Mumbai 400 011.

¶56

Subhash Pancham Choudhary Adult, Indian Inhabitant having address at New Stone No. 93, Chota Dhobi Ghat, Gangaram Babu Sakpal Marg, Saat Rasta, Jacob Circle, Mumbai 400 011.

¶57

.. Respondents

¶58

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 822 OF 2018

¶59

Shri Santoshkumar Mithailal Kanojia Aged about 39 years, Occupation : Dhobi (Washerman) (holding Washstone/Cubic Stone No. 163)

¶60

Shri Dharamraj Pannalal Kanojia Aged about 29 years, Occupation : Dhobi (Wasterman) (holding Washstone /Cubic Stone No. 608) Both having their address at Bada Dhobighat, Gate No.4, Mahalaxmi Dhobighat, Dr.E'moses Road, Mahalaxmi (E), Jacob Circle, Saatrasta, Mumbai 400 011. .. Petitioners

¶61

V/s.

¶62

The State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader, Original Side, High Court, Bombay

¶63

6/30

¶64

wp 1654.18.doc

¶65

The High Power Committee, Government of Maharashtra, Having office at Administrative Building, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 050.

¶66

The Slum Rehabilitation Authority Statutory authority constituted Under the Slum (Clearance, Improvement and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 having its office at Administrative Building, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 050.

¶67

Executive Engineer-- City Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Having his office at Administrative Building, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 050.

¶68

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai through its Commissioner, Having office at Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai- 400 001.

¶69

M/s.Omkar Raltors Projects Pvt.Ltd., A Company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its office at Omkar House, Off.Eastern Express Highway, Sion (East), Mumbai 400 022.

¶70

Dhobi Audyogik Vikas Co-operative Society Ltd. A Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative

¶71

7/30

¶72

wp 1654.18.doc

¶73

Societies Act, 1960 having office at Chhota Dhobighat, Gate No.3, Dr.E.Moses Road, Saat Rasta, Mumbai 400 011.

¶74

Shree Saibaba Nagar Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) Through its Chairman having office at G.B.Sakpal Marg, Dhobighat, Saat Rasta, Mumbai 400 011.

¶75

Dhobi Kalyan & Audyogik Vikas Co-operative Society Ltd., Having address at Municipal Mahalaxmi Dhobi Wadi, Dr.E.Moses Road, Jacob Circle, Mumbai – 400 011.

¶76

Mahalaxmi Dhobi Vikas Seva Samiti A Society registered under Societies Registered Act, 1960 having office at C/o. Chetan Jagdish Pardeshi, New S.T.-65, Ground Floor, Dhobighat, Patra Shed, Gangaram Babu Sakpal Marg, Dhobi Ghat, Saat Rasta, Jacob Circle, Mumbai 400 011.

¶77

Santosh Gaurishankar Kanojia Adult, Indian Inhabitant having address Room No. 307, Kashinath Building, Saat Rasta, Near Jacob Circle, Mumbai 400 011.

¶78

Subhash Pancham Choudhary Adult, Indian Inhabitant having address at New Stone

¶79

8/30

¶80

wp 1654.18.doc

¶81

No. 93, Chota Dhobi Ghat, Gangaram Babu Sakpal Marg, Saat Rasta, Jacob Circle, Mumbai 400 011.

¶82

.. Respondents

¶83

Ms.Neelam Gupta I/b Mr.S.R.Gupta, for the Petitioner in WP/422/2018 and WP/822/2018.

¶84

Ms.Rama Subhramanian a/w Mr.M. Ramesh, for the Petitioner in WPL/760/2018.

¶85

Mr.Amarendra Mishra a/w Mr.Anil Lawand I/b Ms.Shweta Rajesh Kadam, for the Petitioner in WP/1654/2018.

¶86

Mr.Hemant Haryan, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State in WP/422/2018.

¶87

Mr.Kedar Dighe, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 2 – State in WP/822/2018.

¶88

Mr.M.A.Sayed, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State in WP/1654/2018.

¶89

Mr.Jagdish G.Reddy (Aradwad), for Respondents No. 2, 3 & 4 in WP/422/2018.

¶90

Mr.Chetan Mhatre I/b M/s.Utangale & Co., for Respondent No.3 in WP/422/2018.

¶91

Mr.Vijay D.Patil, for Respondent No.1 in WPL/760/2018 and for Respondents No.2, 3 & 4 in WP/822/2018 and WP/1654/2018.

¶92

Mr.Anil Sakhare, Senior Counsel a/w Ms.Trupti Puranik, for Respondent No.5 in WP/422/2018, WP/822/2018 and WP/1654/2018 and Respondent No.2 in WPL/760/2018 – MCGM.

¶93

Dr.Milind Sathe, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.Aftab Diamondwala,

¶94

9/30

¶95

wp 1654.18.doc

¶96

Ms.Sheetal Bagwe, Ms.Asha Nair I/b M/s.Diamondwala and Co., for Respondent No.3 in WPL/760/2018 and for Respondent No.6 in WP/422/2018, WP/822/2018 and WP/1654/2018.

¶97

Mr.Vineet Naik, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.Jayesh Vyas, for Respondent No.8 in WP/422/2018 and WP/822/2018 and for Respondent No.4 in WPL/760/2018 and for Respondent No.7 in WP/1654/2018.

¶98

CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 05^th OCTOBER, 2018

¶99

JUDGMENT (PER M.S.KARNIK, J) :

¶100

. All these Writ Petitions are interconnected and raise

¶101

common issues.

¶102

We will first deal with the Writ Petition No. 1654 of 2018.

¶103

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by

¶104

consent of the parties.

¶105

The Petitioner - Dhobi Jan Vikas Sanstha by this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks to challenge an order dated 29/11/2016 passed by the Respondent No.2- High Power Committee (for short 'HPC') in

¶106

10/30

¶107

wp 1654.18.doc

¶108

Appeal No. 7 of 2016.

¶109

It would be pertinent to mention at the outset that the Appeal No. 7 of 2016 was filed before the HPC by Dhobi Audhyogik Vikas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The said Appeal was filed before the HPC pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 19/05/2016 in Writ Petition No. 2691 of 2015 filed by Dhobi Audhyogik Vikas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The Petitioner was not a party to the Appeal. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner – Society is directly aggrieved by the said order as their rights are affected and therefore the Petition is filed challenging the said order.

¶110

The Petitioner has prayed for consequential relief of quashing the Letter of Intent (hereinafter referred to as 'LOI' for short) and further permission granted in favour of Respondent No.6 for redevelopment of plot bearing CS No. 1 (part) & 2 (part) of Lower Parel Division in G/S Ward at G.B.Sakpal Marg, Saat Rasta, Dhobighat, Mumbai.

¶111

11/30

¶112

wp 1654.18.doc

¶113

The facts of the case in a nutshell are thus :

¶114

The Petitioner- Society is constituted and formed by Dhobis/ Launderers who are holding licences and tenancies in respect of place of washing stones and of Rassi area (drying land) i.e. Dhobi Ghat situate at Chotta Dhobi Ghat, Saat Rasta, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400011. The said Society was formed vide Certificate of Registration dated 08/01/2018.

¶115

Respondent No.5- Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as MCGM for short) is the owner of the said plot. The Petitioners are concerned with the area of 7724.61 sq. meters, which is an open dry area i.e. rassi area for drying washed clothes.

¶116

It is the case of the Petitioner that the total land area of 28,156.35 sq. meters was reserved area for Dhobighat. Of the said area, an area of 20431.71 sq. meters has been encroached

¶117

12/30

¶118

wp 1654.18.doc

¶119

by the slums. Respondent No.7 – Shree Saibaba Nagar SRA CHS (Prop) was formed by occupants of the said slum area under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act for the purpose of redevelopment of the said slum area under the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (for short 'Slum Act') read with regulation 33(10) of Development Control Rules ('DCR' for short).

¶120

Respondent No.3 – Slum Redevelopment Authority ('SRA' for short) approved the redevelopment proposal of the said area and issued all sanctions and permissions i.e. LOI & IOA and presently Respondent No.6 - developer is implementing the slum rehabilitation scheme at the slum area.

¶121

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondents are not justified in including the area of 7724.61 sq. meters also for the purpose of redevelopment of the slum area. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, they

¶122

13/30

¶123

wp 1654.18.doc

¶124

have been carrying on their occupation of drying clothes in the said area for long number of years. Learned Counsel submits that they are in exclusive use of the open area for drying purpose which area is popularly known as 'Dhobitghat'. Learned Counsel submits that the members of the Society have been issued with requisite licences to dry the clothes in the rassi area and therefore for the purpose of implementation of the said slum scheme, it is impermissible to also include the said area of 7724.61 sq. meters, as the said area is not encroached by the slums. In the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, under the Slum Act, the redevelopment is permissible only on the plot of land which is encroached upon by the slum. In any case, learned Counsel submits that if the development proceeds, the members of the Petitioner-Society would be virtually on the streets and they will be left with no place to dry the clothes thereby affecting their livelihood itself.

¶125

Learned Counsel invited our attention to the impugned order. According to him, the dissent order of one of

¶126

14/30

¶127

wp 1654.18.doc

¶128

the members of HPC reflects the correct position. In his submission, majority opinion is not in consonance with the provisions of law. Learned Counsel took us through the findings recorded by the member of the HPC in her dissent. Learned Counsel tried to persuade us to accept the view expressed in the dissent. He urged that the impugned order passed by the HPC be quashed and set aside.

¶129

Per contra, Learned Senior Counsel for MCGM supported the order passed by HPC. He submits that the MCGM is in favour of the development and that even the interest of the licensees of the drying/rassi area are protected. In his submission, the members of the Petitioner- Society who are licence holders have no right, title and interest over the drying area in question. Their rights are governed by the terms of licence. The licensees are permitted to dry the clothes in rassi area on the terms and condition mentioned in the licence. In his submission it is therefore not open for the Petitioner to oppose the said project as it is the MCGM which owns the

¶130

15/30

¶131

wp 1654.18.doc

¶132

property and is in support of the redevelopment. He points out that the interest of the licencees is well taken care of and safeguarded.

¶133

Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No.6 – developer invited our attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed on their behalf duly affirmed by one Shri Vijay Kunder. He objected to the filing of the Petition on the ground that the Petitioner is neither party to the said Appeal nor did they intervene in the matter during the pendency of the Appeal. He submits that the Petitioner -Society is formed much later i.e. after passing of the impugned order by HPC with the sole intention of creating hurdles in the redevelopment. He further submits that as many as 8 Societies were party to the Appeal in various capacities either as Appellant or Respondent or intervenor. They were duly heard by HPC and were also represented in the meeting held on 26/05/2016. He invited our attention to the minutes of the meeting dated 25/05/2016 to point out that the representatives of the said Societies were

16/30

wp 1654.18.doc

present.

Learned Counsel submits that the minutes of the

¶138

meeting clearly records the manner in which the rassi/rope holders are to be accommodated. He further pointed out that the impugned order of HPC was challenged by Mahalaxmi Chota Dhobighat Society by way of Writ Petition No. 1028 of 2017 which came to be withdrawn on 21/11/2017. This withdrawal was in view of assurance of the Developer that the interest of rope holders is adequately taken care of & protected.

¶139

It is pointed out that in fact out of 1530 slum dwellers, 1502 have shifted to alternate accommodations. The claim in respect of the rassi/ rope holders is also well protected. Learned Counsel submits that majority of the rassi/rope holders have accepted the redevelopment. According to him the Petition filed on behalf of Society comprising of miniscule disgruntled rassi holders, which is formed after the impugned order is passed, is obviously only with a view to further delay the project which is already delayed.

¶140

17/30

¶141

wp 1654.18.doc

¶142

We have considered the submissions made on behalf

¶143

of the respective Counsel. We have perused the minutes of the meeting dated 25/05/2016 held in the office of Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Churchgate. It clearly records that the same was attended by the representatives of Dhobi Audyogic Vikas Society, representatives of Dhobi Kalyan Society and representatives of Shree Saibaba Nagar SRA CHS – Respondent No.7 and representatives of other Societies. It is pertinent to state the relevant points which were discussed in the meeting which are as under:

¶144

Hon'ble CEO (SRA) explained and advised that list of rope holders, who are drying clothes in said Drying Area and also correspondingly having municipal licenses for stone, will be obtained on priority from DHO, MCGM agreed to the same. The Developer will construct and handover Dhobighat Reservation building as per SRA Norms to MCGM and thereafter MCGM will rehabilitate the rope holders as per the aforesaid list in the said Dhobighat Reservation Building.

¶145

In case reservation building developed as per SRA Norms, not able to accommodate all the rope holders, SRA may ask the developer to construct more built up area without counting the same in FSI and consultation with MCGM and handover it to MCGM. However, developer would be compensated for constructing additional area in the form of TDR or in any other mechanism.

¶146

18/30

¶147

wp 1654.18.doc

¶148

Some of the Rope holders pointed out that they need either temporary alternative space or compensation against their ropes till the permanent arrangement is made. Developer agreed to the same.

¶149

Representatives of other societies explained that most of the rope holders are pro development and they want to go with the mechanised drying technology as explained by Developer.

¶150

It is pertinent to note that the members of the Petitioner - Society did not intervene in the Appeal No. 7 of 2016. As noted earlier the Petitioner- Society is formed only on 08/01/2018 after the impugned order of HPC. It is a matter of record and as is clear from the minutes of the meeting dated 25/05/2016, various Societies espousing the very same cause as the Petitioner- Society, were not only present in the meeting, but even have intervened in Appeal No. 7 of 2016. It is not as if the members of the Petitioner-Society were not aware of the redevelopment. In fact the rassi holders who were diligent enough, have through their Societies duly represented themselves and put forth their grievance before the HPC. Even a Writ Petition was filed as far back as in 1999 being Writ Petition No. 1082 of 1999 by Dhobi Kalyan Society and Dhobi Audyogic

¶151

19/30

¶152

wp 1654.18.doc

¶153

Vikas Society concerning the redevelopment. Not only this, Writ Petition No. 2691 of 2015 filed by Dhobi Audyogic Vikas Society challenging the permissions/sanctions granted to Respondent No.6 came to be disposed of with a direction to the Petitioner therein to approach the HPC.

¶154

In the Appeal No. 7 of 2016 filed by one such Society, HPC passed the order dated 29/11/2016 by majority of

¶155

3:1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29/11/2016 passed by HPC, Mahalaxmi Chhota Dhobighat Society filed Writ Petition No. 1028 of 2017 in this court. In view of the affidavitin-reply filed by Respondent No. 6 – Developer, the Petition came to be withdrawn on 21/11/2017.

¶156

It is a matter of record that most of the rassi holders have accepted the redevelopment proposal as interest of rassi holders, who are members of the Societies which were duly represented before HPC are protected. The present Society which has been formed only on 08/01/2018, appears to be formed by a handful of disgruntled rassi holders who want to

¶157

20/30

¶158

wp 1654.18.doc

¶159

stall the development. The conduct of the Petitioner- Society in forming the Society as late as in January 2018 to rake-up the issues which stand concluded qua sizeable majority of the rassi holders would by itself dis-entitle the Petitioner from getting any relief in the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the Petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone.

¶160

We however deem it appropriate to address the other issues raised by the Petitioners with a view to satisfy ourselves as to whether the interest of the licenced rassi holders

¶161

of the Petitioner Society and the Licenced rassi holders in connected Writ Petitions are adequately protected.

¶162

It is not in dispute that Respondent No.5 - MCGM is the owner of the plot in question. The said plot was used as a drying area by the dhobis, who are issued with rassi holders (rope) licence by MCGM. MCGM which is the owner of the plot of land has no objection to the redevelopment. We fail to

¶163

21/30

¶164

wp 1654.18.doc

¶165

appreciate as to how at the instance of rassi holders who are the licensees, the Writ Petition challenging the various permissions and sanctions granted in furtherance of redevelopment is tenable. In any case, the interest of the licenced rassi holders is duly protected which arrangement is also acceptable to the large majority of rassi holders.

¶166

It would be pertinent to note that out of 1530 slum dwellers, already 1502 have been shifted and are being provided with rent in lieu of temporary alternate accommodation. Insofar as the licenced rassi holders are concerned, they are being provided with temporary location to carry on their activities of drying clothes. They are already shifted from the site for implementation of the scheme. It is also pertinent to note that the Dhobi Audhyogik Vikas Co-op Society Ltd. which filed Writ Petition No. 2691 of 2015, had categorically made a statement that they are not objecting to the implementation of the slum scheme. A meeting was called on 25/05/2016 by CEO of SRA which was duly attended by various authorities to consider the

¶167

22/30

¶168

wp 1654.18.doc

¶169

pros & cons and beneficial usage of Dhobighat, reservation for drying area etc. The meeting was duly attended by representatives of the Societies of which rassi holders are members.

¶170

Learned Senior Counsel for the Developer on instructions makes a statement that the Respondent No.6 – Developer would abide by the assurances which are recorded in the Minutes of Meeting dated 25/05/2016. He further submits on instructions of Respondent No.6 that the assurances recorded in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 25/05/2016 would also apply to eligible licenced rassi holders who are members of the present Petitioner Society as well as Petitioner licenced rassi holders who are eligible in connected Petitions. He submits that Respondent No. 6 – Developer will construct and hand over Dhobighat reserved building as per SRA norms to MCGM whereafter the MCGM will rehabilitate the rope holders as per the list submitted by MCGM of eligible licenced rassi/rope holders. The learned Senior Counsel further undertakes that the

¶171

23/30

¶172

wp 1654.18.doc

¶173

eligible licenced rassi/rope holders of the Petitioner – Society would be provided with temporary alternate arrangement for drying the clothes till the permanent arrangement is made. The undertaking by Respondent No.6 is accepted.

¶174

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that when MCGM being the owner of the drying area is supporting the development and even the representatives of the other Societies of rassi holders, who comprise of the large majority of the rassi holders are pro-development and are willing to go with the mechanized technique of drying as explained by the Developer, the present Petition filed at the instance of a few disgruntled rassi holders is only a belated attempt to stall redevelopment.

¶175

The order passed by HPC, as indicated earlier, has been accepted by vast majority of rassi holders. It is only a few rassi holders who claim to have formed the Society at this belated juncture have approached this Court challenging the

¶176

24/30

¶177

wp 1654.18.doc

¶178

order passed by HPC. In this view of the matter, as we find that the rights of the licenced rassi holders are adequately safeguarded, we do not think this is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order passed by HPC. Writ Petition No. 1654 of 2018 is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

¶179

II. WRIT PETITION No. 760 OF 2018

¶180

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.

¶181

This Petition is filed by the Petitioner for direction to the Respondent No.1 – the Chief Executive Officer, SRA and Respondent No.2 – MCGM to identify, select and demarcate a continuous stretch of land admeasuring 7724.61 sq. meters within the plot bearing No. C.S No. 1(pt) and 2(pt) of Lower Parel Division in G/South ward at G.B.Sakpal Marg, Satrasta, Mumbai and to keep the demarcated land open to sky and to allocate the same to the licenced rassi holders including the Petitioners. Further reliefs are sought to take up the issue of

¶182

25/30

¶183

wp 1654.18.doc

¶184

development/allotment of drying yard of Mahalaxmi Dhobighat before the appropriate authority including Standing Committee of Corporation and to put the said open land to such use as it may be approved by the proper authority through a resolution passed by the MCGM. The Petitioner also prays for a relief directing Respondent No.1 to cancel the 1.33 FSI granted to Respondent No.3 against the drying yard at reduced land premium.

¶185

We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The issues involved in the present Petition are by and large similar to one raised in Writ Petition No. 1654 of 2018. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is not challenging the order passed by HPC. They are aggrieved by the manner in which the Corporation has permitted the redevelopment without there being a proper resolution passed by the Standing Committee of the Corporation.

¶186

Undisputedly, MCGM is the owner of the land in

¶187

26/30

¶188

wp 1654.18.doc

¶189

question. Present Petition is filed by 3 Petitioners. The Petitioner No.1 is a licenced rassi holder of the MCGM. Petitioners No.2 & 3 claim to be working with the Petitioner No.1.

¶190

In our order passed in Writ Petition No. 1654 of 2018, we have already observed that the vast majority of the licenced rassi holders are not opposing the redevelopment and in fact they want to go with the mechanized drying technique as explained by the Developer. The interest of licenced rassi holders similarly situated like the Petitioner No.1 was duly represented by the Societies of which the rassi holders were members before the HPC. We therefore find that filing of this Writ Petition on behalf of Petitioner No.1 licenced rassi holder, after the HPC passed the order, is nothing but an attempt to stall the project which has already been delayed. Vast majority of the rassi holders are pro – redevelopment. We have already recorded the undertaking given on behalf of the developer in Writ Petition No. 1854 of 2018 protecting the interest of the

¶191

27/30

¶192

wp 1654.18.doc

¶193

licenced rassi holders. The learned Senior Counsel for the Developer – Respondent No.3 herein submits that the undertaking given by him in Writ Petition No. 1654 of 2018 would extend even to the Petitioner No.1 in this Petition. We accept the said undertaking.

¶194

The Learned Senior Counsel for the MCGM has categorically stated that the MCGM being the owner of the plot in question, is in favour of redevelopment. When the MCGM being the owner of the land in question is not opposing the redevelopment, Petitioner No.1 who is a licensed rassi holder cannot be heard to contend as to in what manner the development should proceed more so when his rights under the licence are safeguarded.

¶195

In this view of the matter, the present Petition is devoid of any merits and hence the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

¶196

28/30

¶197

wp 1654.18.doc

¶198

III. WRIT PETITION NO.422 OF 2018 & WRIT PETITION NO. 822 OF 2018

¶199

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.

¶200

These two Petitions are filed by four Petitioners who are dhobis (washerman) holding washstones/cubic stones licences No.185, 90, 163 & 608 respectively and also are licenced rassi holders.

¶201

For the reasons mentioned in the Writ Petition No. 1654 of 2018, the present Writ Petitions are dismissed. We have already held that the vast majority of the licenced rassi holders are pro–redevelopment and have accepted the order passed by HPC. We find that the present Petitions filed on behalf of these 4 Petitioners is only a belated attempt to stall the development. Needless to mention that undertaking recorded on behalf of the Respondent No.6 – Developer in Writ Petition No. 1654 of 2018 would cover these Petitioners also.

¶202

29/30

¶203

wp 1654.18.doc

¶204