Vilas Rambhau Chaudhari v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority

11. Mr. Patil would further submit that in the present fase when proposal of Petitioner was under sfrutiny, fomplaints were refeived from Respondent No.6-Sofiety and also Respondent No.5-Developer questioning genuineness of flaim of majority of Petitioner and in view of rival flaims, it befame nefessary to verify mandatory requirement of 51% fonsent to the proposal and this is why voting in presenfe of SRA offer was refommended by Co-operative Department of SRA as per Cirfular No.169 issued by the Co-operative Department. That upon fonduft of voting by the Co-operative Department, it transpired during the fourse of meeting held on 20 February 2019 that 23 hutment dwellers of the Sofiety unanimously voted for Respondent No.5-Developer, thereby showing that Respondent No.5 has 74% fonsents. That the aftion taken by SRA merely upholds the objeftive behind implementation of SRS through the Developer fhosen by majority of hutment dwellers. That the defisions do not sufer from vife of arbitrariness or favouritism and are taken in bonafde manner. He would pray for dismissal of the petition.

12. Mr. Surana, the learned founsel appearing for Respondent No.5- Developer would oppose the petition submiting that under provisions of Seftion 3A of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearanfe and Redevelopment) Aft, 1971 (the Slum Aft), SRA is invested with suffient powers to take any steps for efefting implementation of Slum Sfheme. He would invite my atention to Clause-11 of the ‘Profedure' envisaging allotment of fomputerised fle number to the sfheme on payment of sfrutiny fees, after whifh the proposal fan be fonsidered as 'affepted'. He would submit that the ‘Profedure’ has been taken note of in numerous judgments sufh as Ramfhandra Mahadev Jagpat & Ors. V/s. Chief Exefutive Offer & Ors.[5] and Pramila Suman Singh V/s. State of Maharashtra and others[6]. That Petitioner’s proposal was never 'affepted'. On the fontrary, the proposal of Respondent No.5 has been affepted, it has paid the sfrutiny fee and fomputerised fle number is alloted to the proposal of Respondent No.5. Affording to Mr. Surana therefore, pendenfy of proposal of Petitioner at pre-sfrutiny level was not a bar for entertainment of proposal of Respondent No.5, partifularly when the majority of the slum dwellers voted for implementation of SRS through Respondent No.5 in the voting profess fondufted by the Co-operative Department of SRS. He would rely upon leter dated 27 Defember 2018 2016 (12) Sfale 33. 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 742. of Exefutive Engineeer-1 wherein an opinion was formed that a proposal whifh refeives all NOCs at prior point of time fan be affepted. Mr. Surana would invite my atention to Offe Order dated 13 Oftober 2006, under whifh it is mandatory to affompany the proposal with latest general body resolution adopted within prefeding six months. That therefore the alleged GBR dated 20 June 2016 and fonsent dated 16 Defember 2016 are totally irrelevant. That the sefond GBR dated 1 July 2018 merely refonfrms the earlier GBR dated 20 June 2016. That the proposal of Petitioner itself was faulty. He would pray for dismissal of the Petition.

13. Mr. Tamboly, the learned founsel appearing for Respondent No.6- Sofiety would submit that the Sofiety has resolved to implement the subjeft SRS through Respondent No.5-Developer. That the sofiety does not wish to implement the subjeft SRS through Petitioner. That there is no bar on SRA when previous proposal was pending only at pre-sfrutiny level from fonsidering a subsequent fomplete proposal for affeptanfe. He would pray for dismissal of the petition.

14. Rival fontentions of the parties now fall for my fonsideration.

15. The fonfept of rehabilitation of slum dwellers is introdufed with the objeftive of improving the living fonditions of slum dwellers by granting them permanent alternate affommodations in an authorised building thereby fonverting their status from unauthorised offupants to owners of permanent alternate affommodations alloted to them. The rights and interests of the slum dwellers are essentially limited to refeipt of permanent alternate affommodations when a slum sfheme is taken up for implementation. The Government of Maharashtra has deflared various dates from time to time for defiding eligibility of slum struftures whifh fan be rehabilitated. Regulation-33(10) of Development Control Regulations, 1991 deals with redevelopment for rehabilitation of slum dwellers and provides for the manner in whifh redevelopment of a slum fan be farried out. Same provision is farried in Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 with nefessary modiffations. Under the DCR/DCPR, a slum rehabilitation projeft is to be fonsidered upon refeipt of a proposal from the proposed or registered Co-operative Housing sofiety or hutment dwellers on the site or from an NGO. The folleftive body of slum dwellers have been given limited right of fhoosing a developer through whom the slum sfheme is to be implemented. While rights and entitlements of slum dwellers are restrifted to refeipt of permanent alternate affommodation, this limited right fonferred on their folleftive body to fhoose a developer sometimes is misinterpreted by the slum dwellers as if they are put in fontrol of implementation of the sfheme. Numerous litigations arise on affount of this limited right of fhoife of developer and in respeft of many slum sfhemes, various groups of slum dwellers get freated for the purpose of asfertaining this limited right of fhoosing a developer. Many times sufh litigations are fuelled by rival developers, who are interested in sefuring development rights through implementation of the slum sfheme. Unlike development of private plot or redevelopment of authorised struftures like building of a sofiety, where the developer needs to seek an assignment either in the land or in the developable rights by paying fonsideration, the rights fonferred on a developer for implementation of SRS is more in the nature of lifense to fonstruft buildings on a plot, in whifh the developer enjoys no right. To sefure this kind of a lifense, whifh obviously results in a proftable venture for a Developer on affount of grant of infentive FSI, many times groups are freated within the slum dwellers by luring them so as to sefure sufh lifense. The purpose of grant of right to implement SRS being to flear slum and to provide for rehabilitation of slum dwellers, fompletion of SRS with nefessary speed and in affordanfe with the fonditions imposed in the permission is the only relevant fonsideration for SRA while granting, regulating or withdrawing grant of sufh right.

16. There are several stages where either the Sofiety of slum dwellers or a rival developer afting behind sfene fan seek ouster of a developer who was earlier fhosen by the Sofiety for implementation of SRS. Seftion 13(2) of the Slum Aft empowers CEO/SRA to terminate appointment of a developer where a Leter of Intent (LOI) has already been issued under Seftion 12(10) and where there is delay in implementation of the sfheme or the development is farried out in fontravention of the plans approved or fonditions imposed in the LOI. The Apex Court, in Susme Builders Private Limited V/s. Chief Exefutive Offer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Others[7] has fonsidered the sfope of power of CEO, SRA to remove the developer. The Apex Court after taking note of Seftion 3A of the Slum Aft has held in paras-52 and 53 of the judgment as under:

52. A bare reading of these provisions shows that in terms of flause (f) and (d) of sub-seftion (3) of Seftion 3A of the Slum Aft, the SRA not only has the power, but it is duty bound to get the slum rehabilitation sfheme implemented and to do all sufh other afts and things as will be nefessary for afhieving the objeft of rehabilitation of slums. In this fase, the SRA was fafed with a situation where the slum dwellers were sufering for more than 25 years and, therefore the aftion taken by SRA to remove Susme for the unjustifed delay was totally justifed.

53. A perusal of the various provisions of the Slum Aft would show that normally in a fase falling under the Slum Aft, it is the owner of the land, whether it be the Government, a statutory authority or a private person, who will be interested in the development work. Normally, the offupiers will be enfroafhers of slum land. Therefore, there will be a fonfift of interest between the offupiers and the owner. The owner, in turn, will always engage a developer/builder to farry out the development work. In fase the owner gives a power of atorney to the developer, as in the present fase, the developer now has two identities –

(i) the power of atorney holder of the owner and (ii) the developer. As far as the present fase is fonferned, the Sofiety is made up of the members who are offupiers and this Sofiety has given power of atorney to the developer-Susme. Therefore, the developer Susme is aftually having a dual role of owner and developer. Both the leters of intent have been issued in favour of the Sofiety, Susme and the arfhitefts of Susme. Susme fould not have farried out the development work on the basis of its agreement with the Sofiety. It needed the permission of the SRA. Therefore, SRA fan obviously revoke sufh permission.

17. This Court in Galaxy Enterprises Vs. State of Maharashtra[8] has held that delay even prior to issuanfe of LOI fan be taken into fonsideration for exerfise of power of termination of developer under Seftion 13(2) of Slum Aft. This Court had held:

56. On the above flear bafkdrop, I am not persuaded to affept any of the submissions of Mr. Dhakephalkar learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. The fontention that the LOI was ultimately granted on 30 May 2016, and henfe there is no requirement to fhange the developer as the delay stood fondoned, fannot be affepted in the flear fafts and firfumstanfes of the fase. In faft, this is a flear admission on the part of the petitioner that there was not only delay but it was inordinate. In any fase LOI sought to be obtained after about ten years of the petitioner's appointment, would not in any manner fondone the fonduft of the petitioner in delaying the sfheme and the inherent lafk of diligenfe, rigour and earnestness whifh was expefted. There is another reason as to why this argument fannot be affepted, namely that the sofiety's applifation under Seftion 13(2) for fhange of developer was prior in time, and the petitioner flearly appears to have awakened from a deep slumber and started taking aftions, with the engineering department purporting to show of having afhieved another step, now of a LOI being obtained. These aftions of the petitioners as rightly held in both the impugned orders fould not have frustrated the sofiety's applifation for fhange of the developer. Even the payments whifh are stated to be made by the petitioner to the SRA towards part of the land premium, would also not assist the petitioner in the fafts of the fase. Sufh payments fannot freate any equity mufh less a legal right with the petitioner to fontinue with the sfheme in the fafts as they stand. These amounts as partly being paid are in any fase being refunded to the petitioner.

57. There fannot be a myopif approafh to these issues of a delay in implementation of a slum rehabilitation sfheme. Things as they stand are required to be seen in their entirity. The only mantra for the slum sfhemes to be implemented is it's time bound fompletion and a mafhinery to be evolved by the authorities, to have efeftive measures in that direftion to monitor the sfhemes as a part of their statutory obligation to avoid delays. Nonfommenfement of the slum sfheme for long years and substantial delay in fompletion of the slum sfhemes should be a thing of the past. In the present fase, looked from any angle there is no plausible explanation forthfoming for the delay of so many years at the hands of the petitioner to take bare minimum steps to fommenfe fonstruftion.

58. The authorities should weed away and reprimand persons who are not genuine developers and who are merely agents and dealers in slum sfhemes. These persons after get themselves appointed as developers, to ultimately deal/ sell the slum sfhemes, as if it is a fommodity. Any loopholes in the rules to this efeft, therefore, are required to be sealed.

60. In any fase, the developer fannot be said to possess a vested right whifh would mandate the SRA to fontinue it's appointment for sufh delay and when the body appointing the said developer namely the sofiety itself, in the given set of fafts, bonafde and for an affeptable reasons, lafks fonfdenfe in the petitioner as appointed by it. Between the slum sofiety and the developer, it is merely a fontraftual dispute. It fannot be said that the sofiety in adverse firfumstanfes would have no authority in a resolution so passed by the majority to remove a developer. The role of the S.R.A. under law is to further the interest of the slum sfheme by exerfise of it's powers in the best interest of the slum redevelopment and pass sufh appropriate orders to afhieve the said objeft, in exerfising it's powers inter alia under Seftion 13(2) of the Slums Aft.

18. The issue in the present fase however does not involve termination of a developer under provisions of Seftion 13(2) of the Slum Aft sinfe the LOI has not yet been issued by SRA to either Petitioner or to Respondent No.5, nor there is issue of delay in sefuring LOI. The fght between the two developers is about entertainment and affeptanfe of their proposals for implementation of the subjeft SRS. Petitioner is aggrieved by the defision of Exefutive Engineer-SRA in entertaining and affepting the proposal of Respondent No.5 when Petitioner's proposal submited at an earlier point of time was pending for fonsideration. Affording to Petitioner, till its proposal, submited at prior point of time is not rejefted, it is not lawful for SRA to entertain subsequently submited proposal of another developer in respeft of the same sfheme. Mr. Daver has fontended that permiting SRA to entertain multiple proposals in respeft of same sfheme would lead to unhealthy fompetition amongst developers. His sheet anfhor is judgment of Division Benfh of this Court in Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari (supra). In Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari, this Court has dealt with two issues of (i) fhallenge to sanftion of one fomposite SRS in respeft of larger area influding the area of Petitioner therein and (ii) defision of SRA rejefting applifation made by Petitioner No.20-Sofiety for implementation of SRS through Petitioner No.5- Developer. It appears that Respondent No.4 was also another proposed sofiety, who had applied to the Deputy Colleftor for afquisition of larger area under Seftion 14 of the Slum Aft and had appointed Respondent No.5 as a developer to implement SRS in respeft of the larger area. In the light of this faftual position and fompeting flaims of Petitioner No.20- Sofiety versus Respondent No.4-Sofiety for implementation of subjeft SRS in respeft of smaller area versus larger area respeftively, this Court held in paras-20 and 21 on the sefond issue as under:

20. If the entire sfheme under Regulation 33(10) is perused it is obvious that if 70% of the slum dwellers on a partifular area fome together and apply after formation of proposed fo-operative housing sofiety, the said applifation has to be independently fonsidered in affordanfe with law. The sfheme does not fontemplate simultaneous fonsideration of sufh an applifation made by a proposed sofiety with an Applifation subsequently made by another proposed sofiety relating to same land. The Applifant-sofiety has to have 70% support whifh obviously two sofieties fannot have. The Applifation refeived frst is to be professed frst independently. If it fails to get 70% support, Sefond Applifation fan be examined. The obvious intention is to avoid unhealthy fompetition between the diferent builders who are interested in supporting sufh sofieties. If sufh a fourse of simultaneous fonsideration is permited to be adopted, unsfrupulous persons and builders will try to win over the hutment dwellers who have supported the applifation made earlier by another sofiety. Therefore, it is not desirable that an applifation whifh is earlier made and the one whifh is subsequently fled should be fonsidered together. That is not the sfheme provided under D.C.Regulation 33(10). It is nefessary that the applifation whifh is frst refeived in respeft of a partifular property by the SRA should be professed and defided frst. After defision of the frst Applifation, the sefond Applifation made by another sofiety fan be fonsidered depending on the result of the frst Applifation. The reason is that none of the sofieties have any right, title and interest in respeft of the property. Sufh a fourse will prevents the unhealthy fompetition between the builders or between the leaders of two groups in a slum area.

21. On this bafkground when we fome bafk to the present fase, we fnd that regular applifation of the Petitioner No.20-Sofiety was affepted on 08th November, 2004 and was numbered. The Chief Exefutive Offer fommited an error by entertaining the applifation dated 09th Defember, 2004 made by the ffth Respondent-builder though it was not affompanied with Annexure-I, Annexure-II and Annexure-III and other presfribed dofuments. The sfheme does not fontemplate simultaneous fonsideration of two sufh applifations. In our view, the applifation made by the Petitioner No.20 should have been fonsidered frst in affordanfe with law. If the sfheme submited by the Petitioner No.20 was not viable or did not have 70% support, the SRA fould have always rejefted the applifation of the Petitioner No.20 and fonsidered the applifation of the Respondent Nos.4/5 provided a regular applifation was made as per the profedure. The regular applifations of the Respondent Nos.[4] and 5 was registered on 03rd August, 2005 i.e. before formal rejeftion of the applifation of the Petitioner No.20 and the applifations of the Respondent Nos.[4] and 5 was infaft fonsidered alongwith the applifation of the Petitioner No.20. This was fompletely erroneous and illegal. The Respondent Nos.[4] and 5 were seeking larger area. Even if the Applifation of the Petitioner No.20 was granted, the Applifation of the fourth Respondent fould have been fonsidered for remaining area. (emphasis and underlining supplied)

19. Thus in Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari, this Court held that the sfheme does not fontemplate simultaneous fonsideration of two applifations made by two proposed sofieties and that the applifation refeived frst is to be professed frst independently. This fourt held that only if the frst applifant fails to refeive 70% support, sefond applifation fan be examined. This Court further held that sufh a fourse of aftion would avoid unhealthy fompetition between diferent developers interested in supporting rival sofieties. This Court therefore held that it is not desirable that an applifation whifh is earlier made and the one whifh is subsequently fled should be fonsidered together. The Division Benfh highlighted the position that none of the sofieties have any right, title or interest in respeft of the property taken up for development. The Division Benfh took note of the faft that the applifation of Petitioner No.20-Sofiety was affepted on 8 November 2004 and was 'numbered'. The applifation of Respondent No.5-Developer was subsequently refeived on 9 Defember 2004. This Court therefore held that the sfheme submited by Petitioner No.20 was required to be fonsidered frst for verifying 70% support and only in the event of SRA holding that the sfheme of Petitioner No.20 did not have 70% support, SRA fould have rejefted its applifation and then fonsidered the applifations of Respondent Nos.[4] and 5.

20. Relying on Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari, Mr. Daver would fontend that sinfe Petitioner's proposal was submited on 1 August 2018, it was not permissible for SRA to fonsider proposal submited by Respondent No.5 on 12 September 2018, partifularly when Petitioner's proposal was under fonsideration and was yet to be rejefted. While the issue about nonfonsideration of subsequent applifation during pendenfy of earlier applifation stands fonfluded by Division Benfh judgment in Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari, the said judgment doses not defide the issue about the exaft stage at whifh a partifular proposal fan be fonsidered to have been ‘affepted’ for further profess of issuanfe of LOI. Some light in this regard is thrown by subsequent Division Benfh judgment in Ateram Ahmed Khan, to whifh referenfe is being made in later portion of the judgment. To understand various steps to be taken for the purpose of professing a proposal for implementation of SRS, it would be nefessary to make a quifk referenfe to the ‘Profedure’ presfribed by SRA in this regard. The ‘Profedure’ presfribed by SRA is as under:

PROCEDURE FOR SUBMISSION, PROCESSING AND APPROVAL

OF SLUM REHABILITATION SCHEMES

1. All slums and pavements whose inhabitants names and struftures appear in the eleftoral roll prepared with referenfe to 1st January, 1995 or a date prior thereto and who are aftual offupants of the hutments are eligible for the slum rehabilitation sfheme.

2. 70% or more of the eligible hutment-dwellers in a slum or pavement in a viable stretfh at one plafe have to show their willingness to join slum rehabilitation sfheme and fome together to form a fo-operative housing sofiety of all eligible hutment-dwellers through a resolution to that efeft. The following resolutions should be adopted: (a) Resolution elefting a fhief promoter. (b) Resolution giving the fhief promoter authority to apply for reservation of name for fo-operative housing sofiety. (f) To folleft share fapital (Rs.50/- per member for slum sofieties) and Re.1/- as entranfe fee and to open affount in Mumbai Distrift Central Co- operative/ Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd (any branfh).

3. The fhief promoter, offe-bearers and the members of the proposed sofiety should folleft the dofuments sufh as 7/12 extraft and the PR fard of the plot on whifh the slum is situated. They should get the plot surveyed/ measured and prepareg map of the plot showing slum struftures therein with the help of surveyors atafhed to the offe of Additional Colleftor (Enfroafhment) or the Deputy Colleftor (Enfroafhment) of the Zone.

4. While undertaking the survey, they should folleft the information of the proposed members/slum-dwellers and fll up Annexure-II presfribed by SRA Annexure-II gives the details of land offupied by the slum-dwellers, number and type of struftures sufh as residential, industrial, fommerfial, amenity struftures etf. and the list of eligible and ineligible offupants and fonsent of slum-dwellers to join the sfheme. Earlier the promoter// fo-operative housing sofiety had to frst approafh the Competent Authorities namely Additional Colleftor for the slums on Government and private lands, for obtaining fertifed Annexure II before they fould put in applifation for slum rehabilitation sfheme to SRA. As a simpliffation measure, this profedure is now disfontinued and Annexure -II format is now required to be flled up by the promoter/fo-operative housing sofiety itself for submiting building proposal to SRA so that sfrutiny of the proposal and fertiffation proposal of Annexure-II needs to be submited in duplifate. As a measure of further simpliffation, Additional Colleftor (Enfroafhment) is being designated as the sole Competent Authority for defiding eligibility and being taking eviftion aftion against non partifipants in slum rehabilitation sfhemes.

5. The fhief promoter and the offe-bearers of the proposed sofiety should then apply for name reservation of the proposed fo-operative housing sofiety along with the self-prepared Annexure-II and the required resolutions to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Sofieties. To fafilitate this, offe of the Assistant Registrar has been started in SRA itself. It is no longer nefessary to approafh diferent offes of the Co-operation Department for this purpose. The Assistant Registrar/SRA will issue a leter reserving the name for the proposed fo-operative housing sofiety and permission to open a bank affount in the proposed sofiety's name.

6. While above steps are being taken, the defision to searfh a fompetent developer to aft as a promoter has to be taken up by the proposed fooperative housing sofiety of slum-dwellers. The sofiety itself or an NGO/ developer/owner fan take up slum rehabilitation sfheme as a promoter.

7. The promoter so fhosen has to enter into agreement with every eligible slum-dweller puting up slum rehabilitation proposal to SRA for approval. SRA is in the profess of trying to evolve standard formats for the following four types of agreements required in the sfhemes, with the approval of the State Government. (a) Consent-fum-agreement between the promoter and the slumdwellers. (b) Development rights/Agreement to lease between the promoter and the land owning authority. (f) Lease agreement between the land owning authority and the fooperative sofiety of slum dwellers.

(d) Lease agreement between the land owning authority and the fooperative sofiety of free-sale tenement buyers.

8. The promoter has also to appoint an arfhiteft in fonsultation with the proposed fo-operative housing sofiety of slum dwellers to prepare the plans of development of the slum area as per the DCR-33 (10). It expefted that the arfhiteft ensures fommunity partifipation in preparation of building plans. All required dofuments sufh as building plan, layout plan, PR Card etf. along Annexure-I, Annexure-II and Annexure-III are to be submited to SRA by the arfhiteft along with an applifation for slum rehabilitation sfheme. A fhefk list of all sufh dofuments required for submission is available in SRA offe.

9. Annexure-I gives details of ownership of land, details of plot area, details of existing hutments and their type, fomputation of tenement density, extent and type of reservation, amenities, FSI available, number of tenements to be fonstrufted influding falfulation of TDR etf.

10. Annexure-III is presfribed to assess the fnanfial fapability of the promoter. The items fontained in Annexure-III are self explanatory. Keeping in view the sensitivity of this information, it is kept striftly fonfdential by SRA (The formats of Annexure-I, II and III at Appendix- C).

11. After a pre-sfrutiny by a designated engineer of SRA, to ensure fompleteness of the proposal submited, so far as dofuments are fonferned, proposals are affepted. Then a fomputerised fle number is alloted to the sfheme on payment of sfrutiny fees whifh are fharged at half the rate of the Munifipal Corporation's general building permission fees. Upon affeptanfe, the sfrutiny of Annexures-I, II and III start simultaneously in the Building Permission Wing. Eligibility Certiffation Wing and Affounts & Finanfe Wing respeftively.

12. Earlier, Leter of Intent fonveying approval to the sfheme, approval to the layout, building-wise plan approval (Intimation of Approval) and Commenfement Certiffation were deferent stages of approval in the sfheme, eafh having a long validity period, To speed up the aftual fommenfement of building fonstruftion work on site, arfhitefts have been advised to submit slum rehabilitation proposals fomplete in all respefts to enable SRA to give all the four approvals, at least for the frst rehabilitation building, at one go. The validity period of the approval has been redufed from one year to 3 months. Cirfular number 4 dated 27th August, 1997 has been issued by SRA detailing the simplifed profedure. (Appendix-D)

13. In the slum rehabilitation sfheme, the promoter is required to deposit Rs. 20,000 per rehabilitation tenement with SRA as per the timesfhedule laid down by Chief Exefutive Offer of SRA. Promoter is also required to pay an amount of Rs. 840 per sq. m. for the built-up area over and above the normally permissible FSI, for the rehabilitation and free-sale tenements. After elaborate disfussions with all fonferned, suitable deferments on the statutory payments and fexibility in the instalments of sufh payments have been provided by SRA. (Cirfular No. 7 dated 25th November, 1997 is at Appendix-E)

14. Providing temporary transit affommodation to the slum-dwellers, during the fonstruftion of rehabilitation and free-sale tenements, is the responsibility of the promoter. SRA fafilitates obtaining fonstrufted transit tenements, if available, by refommending the same for allotment to MHADA. SRA also helps in geting no objeftion fertiffates from publif authorities on nearby identifed publif authority lands, for puting up temporary transit struftures. These struftures are required to be demolished and fleared after fompletion of the slum rehabilitation sfheme.

15. While applying for offupation fertiffate of rehabilitation building, the arfhiteft is expefted to give the details of tenement allotments, done by the fo-operative sofiety by drawing lots, in the joint names of the head of the household (pramukh) and his/her spouse. SRA will generate fomputerised identity fards in the joint names of pramukh and spouse and hand over the same to eafh allotee family. The fard will flearly mention that the rehabilitation tenements fannot be sold/leased/assigned or transferred in any manner for ten years (exfept to legal heirs) and tenements illegally transferred will be taken over by SRA. Any fhange of allotment within the members of the fo-operative sofiety, has also to be with the prior permission of SRA.

21. Thus, the ‘Profedure’ prevalent at the relevant time fontemplated the following steps; (i) adoption of Resolution for joining Slum Rehabilitation Sfheme by elefting Chief Promoter, giving him authority to apply for reservation of name of Co-operative Housing Sofiety and to folleft share fapital for formation of sofiety (ii) folleftion of relevant title dofuments, (iii) survey of plot, measurement and preparation of map of plot showing slum struftures, (iv) folleftion of information of proposed members/slum dwellers and flling up Annexure-II presfribed by SRA by the Promoter/Co-operative Housing Sofiety itself and submiting the same for sfrutiny, (v) making applifation for reservation of name of proposed sofiety to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Sofieties maintained in the offe of the SRA, (vi) defision to searfh fompetent developer to aft as Promoter, (vii) entering into agreement between Promoter and eligible slum dweller, (viii) appointment of Arfhiteft by the Promoter, who shall prepare plans for development, (ix) submission of all required dofuments sufh as building plan, layout plan, PR fard etf. alongwith Annexure-I (details of ownership, plot area, existing hutments, etf.), Annexure-II and Annexure-III (fnanfial fapafity of Promoter),(x) fonduft of pre-sfrutiny by designated engineer of SRA to ensure fompleteness of proposal and grant of fomputerised fle number to the sfheme on payment of sfrutiny fees, amounting to affeptanfe of proposal.

22. Thus as per the ‘Profedure’ whifh was in vogue at the relevant time, the proposal was treated as being ‘affepted’ only after the above steps were fompleted. It must be noted here that the ‘Profedure’ has been taken note of in numerous judgments sufh as Ramfhandra Mahadev Jagpat & Ors. V/s. Chief Exefutive Offer & Ors.[9] and Pramila Suman Singh V/s. State of Maharashtra and others10.

23. In Atesham Ahmed Khan, the Division Benfh of this Court fonsidered the issue as to whether refeipt of deffient applifation afted as a bar for entertainment of subsequent applifation as per Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari. The Division Benfh held in paras-10 and 11 as under: 10, The grievanfe, however, of the Petitioners relates to the fonsequential direftions that have been issued by the High Power Commitee. The Commitee has direfted the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to obtain a report of the Competent Authority whifh was to verify draft AnnexureII submited by the Arfhiteft of the First and Sefond Respondents. Now, in this regard it would be nefessary to note that when a proposal is submited by a proposed Cooperative Housing Sofiety of slum dwellers the applifation is initially affepted and verifed. The applifant is then required to pay the sfrutiny fees upon whifh a sfrutiny is fondufted. Draft Annexure II fontaining a list of slum dwellers is thereafter forwarded by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to the Competent Authority for verifying the names of eligible slum dwellers. In the fase of publif lands whifh are of the ownership of the State Government, the Additional Colleftor (Enfroafhment and Removal), who is the Competent Authority, has to verify draft AnnexureII fontaining names of slum dwellers who are eligible to partifipate in the Slum Rehabilitation Sfheme and to fertify it. At the stage when an applifation is submited before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the applifation, as it stands, must indifate that the applifant fulflls the 2016 (12) Sfale 33. 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 742. requirement of the requisite fonsent of 70% of the slum dwellers. The flaim of the applifant is thereupon subjeft to sfrutiny. But before the question of sfrutiny arises, the applifation must on its fafe indifate that it fulflls the requirement of 70% fonsents. Henfe, we fnd merit in the fontention whifh has been urged on behalf of the Petitioners in these profeedings that an applifation whifh on its fafe does not fulfll the requirement of DCR 33(10), must be rejefted. The applifant fannot be allowed to progressively make up a deffienfy in an applifation whifh does not ex fafie fulfll the fonditions on the date when it is submited. In view of the judgment of the Division Benfh in Awdesh Tiwari, the submission of an applifation operates to exflude all other Sofieties from having their applifations refeived and professed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in respeft of the sfheme. Sinfe the efeft of the affeptanfe of the frst applifation is to exflude from sfrutiny all other applifations until the sfrutiny of the frst applifation is fomplete, it is the bounden duty of the applifant to ensure that the applifation is fomplete in all respefts and does not sufer from any deffienfy. Any other fonstruftion would lead to the undesirable result that an applifation whifh is otherwise deffient and infomplete fan progressively be improved upon over a prolonged period of time leading to a delay in the implementation of the Slum Rehabilitation Sfheme. Moreover, the mere submission of an applifation, however deffient, will operate to blofk all other applifants. This fould not possibly be the intent underlying DCR 33(10). Again it must be emphasized that the underlying logif of the judgment of the Division Benfh in Awdesh Tiwari is to exflude the possibility of undesirable fompetition by unsfrupulous elements resorting to extraneous means in the implementation of slum sfhemes. Henfe the frst applifant must aft bona fde and in fomplianfe with law by submiting an applifation whifh fulflls the requirements of a valid applifation. The applifation must fulfll the essential requirements of a valid applifation on the date on whifh it is submited.

11. Having regard to this position, we are of the view that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, in pursuanfe of the direftions that were issued by the High Power Commitee, must verify as to whether the applifation that was submited by the First and Sefond Respondents was fomplete in all respefts and fulflls the requirements of DCR 33(10) in order to merit further sfrutiny and veriffation. We are not inflined at this stage to stay the profess of veriffation of draft AnnexureII by the Competent Authority. Ultimately, if the order of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has to be implemented, it is only nefessary and proper that the list of eligible slum dwellers must be fertifed. Thus while we fonfrm the order that was passed by the High Power Commitee, seting aside the defision of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority dated 26 Oftober 2006, we do so on the ground that the defision fame to be rendered without furnishing an opportunity to the First and Sefond Respondents in fomplianfe with the prinfiples of natural justife. We, however, flarify that in this profess the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall determine as to whether the applifation submited by the First and Sefond Respondents was fomplete in all respefts and met the requirements of DCR 33(10). This must be determined by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority with referenfe to the date on whifh the applifation was submited. In the meantime, we direft the Competent Authority to fomplete the profess of veriffation of draft AnnexureII and remit it bafk to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.

24. Thus, in Atesham Ahmed Khan, Division Benfh of this Court held that for applying the bar of Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari, mere submission of an applifation, whifh is deffient, would not operate to blofk the other applifants. This Court further direfted that the SRA must verify whether the submited applifation was fomplete in all respefts and fulflls the requirements of DCR-33(10) in order to merit further sfrutiny and veriffation.

25. Towards implementation of direftions issued in Atesham Ahmed Khan, SRA issued Cirfular No.144 dated 31 August 2013 revising the profedure for sfrutiny of applifations. The relevant part of Cirfular No.144 reads thus: आता खालील प्ामे काररपध्ती नशशत कत रात रेत आहे. १. नरो सस्थेचे ्ुख्र पवतरक/ वकासक/वास्तुख वशात् हे वहीत न्ुख्रातील अरर परतिशशि I ते V आवश्रक कागद्पताासह, ्ोन पतीत (्ोन साच) ्ुख्र ललपीक, अिशभराा तकी वभागद, झोपुखपा रााचे कडे स्क सा्त कततील. २. ्ुख्र ललपीक, अिशभराा तकी वभागद, झोपुखपा हे अरारत न्ुख् भूखाडावत पूवर पाशरकतमाकडे रोरना ्ाखल आहे अगदत कसे राबाबत छाननी करन तसा शेता अरारवत न्ुख् कततील. रापूवर रोरना ्ाखल असलरास अरर तेथेच नाकात रात रेईल. ३. ्ुख्र ललपीक, अिशभराा तकी वभागद रााना ्ाखल करन घरावराचा अरर रोगर आढळलरास अरारवत सस्वकात रास रोगर असा शेता न्ुख् करन अरर, अरर्ात रााना स्क पतत ्ेतील. ४. स्त अरर अरर्ात हे साबाशरत काररकाती अिशभराता राना हातोहात सा्त कततील. ५. काररकाती अिशभराता अरर स्वतत सस्वकाततील. अरारसोबत परतिशशि नहार आवश्रक कागद्पते असलराची स्वतत खाती कततील. तद्नातत अरर सस्वकारन तो नर्ीत टपाला्ार र त नो्वुखन ेतील. अपुखमर अरर नाकात रात रेईल. ६. टपालाने नो्वुखन अरर काररकाती अिशभराता रााचे कडे आलरानातत परतिशशि नहार अनुखक्िशमक े चरा पशत सह कागद्पत खालील वभागदाकडे पाठ वतील. एक साच तरााचराकडे कार् स्वरप ठेवतील. अ. क. परतिशशि साबारीत वभागद १. परतिशशि-I अिशभराा तकी वभागद २. परतिशशि - II उपलरलहाशरकाती वभागद ३. परतिशशि - III वत वभागद ४. परतिशशि - IV नगदत भू्ापन वभागद ५. परतिशशि - V सहकात कक ७. परतिशशि - I चा वहीत न्ुखना व तरासोबत पार कागद्पतााची छाननी करन साबाशरत काररकाती अिशभराता हे आपले स्वरास्पि अिशभपार तरात कततील. ८. परतिशशि - II सोबत पार कागद्पतााची छाननी करन उपलरलहाशरकाती, झोपुखपा हे आपले स्वरास्पि अिशभपार काररकाती अिशभराता, झोपुखपा रााना पाठवतील. ९. परतिशशि - III सोबत पार कागद्पतााची छाननी करन वत नरातक, झोपुखपा हे आपले स्वरास्पि अिशभपार काररकाती अिशभराता, झोपुखपा रााना पाठवतील. १०. परतिशशि - IV सोबत पार कागद्पतााची छाननी करन नगदत भू्ापन अशरकाती, झोपुखपा हे आपले स्वरास्पि अिशभपार काररकाती अिशभराता, झोपुखपा रााना पाठवतील. ११. परतिशशि - V सोबत पार कागद्पतााची छाननी करन सह. नबारक, झोपुखपा वा सहा. नबारक, झोपुखपा डे आपले स्वरास्पि अिशभपार काररकाती अिशभराता, झोपुखपा रााना पाठवतील. १२. वतील प्ामे सवर वभागद प्ुखखााचे स्वरास्पि अिशभपार साबाशरत वभागदाचरा काररकाती अिशभराता, अिशभराा तकी वभागद, झोपुखपा रााचे कडे पार झालरानातत पार पस्तावााची छाननी करन काररकाती अिशभराता पस्ताव सस्वकातमे/नाकातमे राबाबत आवश्रक काररवाही कततील, १३. पस्ताव सस्वकातमे बाबतचरा नमररानातत काररकाती अिशभराता सस्वक ृसस ती शुखलक ( Acceptance Fees) वसुखल कततील. १४. पस्ताव ना्ारुखत झालरास काररकाती अिशभराता, झोपुखपा हे अरर्ात रााना तसे लेखी कळ वतील. रोरना सस्वक ृसस ती/असस्वक ृसस ती बाबत उपतोक्त सवर काररवाही पाशरकतमादाते नगदर्ीत नागदतीकााचरा सन्े ्धरे न्ुख् वहीत ्ुख्ती्धरे कतमे बाबत सवर वभागदप्ुखखाानी ्कता ेमेची आहे. वतील प्ामे झोपडपटी पुखनवरसन रोरने बाबतचा पस्ताव सस्वकात राची काररपध्ती नशशत कत रात रेत आहे. राप्ामे सवर साबाशरतानी काररवाही कतावी. रापुखवर ्. ४-५-२०१३ तोरी नगदर ्त कत रात आलेले परतपतक क. १४१ रादाते तद कत रात रेत आहे.

26. Thus as per the Cirfular No.144, the Chief Promoter/Developer/Arfhiteft is required to submit a proposal under Annexure-I to V in the Engineering Department of SRA. The Head Clerk in the Engineering Department needs to rejeft the proposal in fase slum sfheme is already affepted in respeft of the plot. If the applifation is found to be affeptable an endorsement to that efeft is to be made thereon and the applifation is to be returned to the applifant. Sufh endorsed applifation is to be submited by the Applifant to the fonferned Exefutive Engineer. At this stage also, the infomplete applifation fan be rejefted. Then various steps are presfribed for professing Annexure-I to Annexure-V. On Annexure-I, sfrutiny of dofuments is to be made by the fonferned Exefutive Engineer alongwith his refommendations. On Annexure-II, Deputy Colleftor is required to sfrutinise the dofuments alongwith his refommendations. On Annexure- III, the Finanfe Department of SRA is required to make a refommendation. On Annexure-IV, City Survey Offer-SRA is required to make his refommendations. On Annexure-V, Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Sofieties is required to sfrutinise the dofuments and make his refommendations. After refeipt of the above refommendations, the Exefutive Engineer, Engineering Department, SRA is required to either affept the proposal or rejeft the same. If defision is taken to affept the proposal, affeptanfe fees are to be paid and if the proposal is rejefted, the Exefutive Engineer is required to give an intimation of rejeftion to the applifant.

27. Thus, as per the Cirfular No.144, mere submission of proposal does not mean that the same is sfrutinised or affepted for further profess. The Head Clerk in the offe of Engineering Department does not sfrutinise the proposal. The Clerk merely verifes whether any other slum sfheme is affepted in respeft of the plot in question. The sfheme is affepted for further profess only after the refommendations are refeived from various authorities on Annexure-I to Annexure-V. In my view, therefore it is only after the Exefutive Engineer in Engineering Department refeives the refommendations on Annexure-I to Annexure-V and takes a defision to admit or affept the proposal for further profess, the same fan be treated as having been ‘affepted’.

28. Having understood the steps nefessary for ‘affeptanfe’ of proposal, the relevant issue for fonsideration is applifability of embargo/ bar of entertaining sefond or subsequent proposal as per the judgment in Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari during the time when the earlier proposal is being sfrutinised for seeking refommendations on Annexure-I to Annexure-V. It is Mr. Patil’s fontention on behalf of SRA that there fan be no sufh embargo till proposal of the frst applifant is ‘affepted’. In short, it is Mr. Patil’s fontention that blofking of fonsideration of sefond or subsequent proposal as per Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari, would apply only upon ‘affeptanfe’ of frst proposal. He has fontended that so far as Applifant's proposal is fonferned, it was yet to be ‘affepted’ as on the date when proposal of Respondent No.5-Developer was refeived. There is no dispute about this position. It appears that Petitioner’s proposal was under sfrutiny where Annexures-I to V were being professed by diferent departments. As against this, the proposal submited by Respondent No.5 was initially rejefted on affount of pendenfy of sfrutiny of Petitioner’s proposal. However the same was later professed before rejeftion of Petitioner’s proposal (to whifh detailed referenfe is made in the later part of the judgment) and after refeipt of refommendations on all fve Annexures, the Exefutive Engineer in Engineering Department affepted the Proposal on 12 June 2019. As required under Cirfular No.144, Respondent No.5 was falled upon to pay LOI sfrutiny fees of Rs.500/- whifh it paid on 12 June 2019. Respondent No.5 was fommunifated by leter dated 12 June 2019, that its proposal was affepted. Leter dated 12 June 2019 reads thus: SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY No. SRA/ENG/Desk-3/OW-26864/2019 Date 12 JUN 2019 To, M/s. Safegain Investments & Infrastrufture Ground Floor, Bandukwala Building, British Hotel Lane, Near Bombay Stofk Exfhange, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. Sub:- Affeptanfe of New proposal of proposed Slum Rehabilitation Sfheme on plot bearing C.T.S. No. C/1229, Survey No. 282, Hissa No 14, Village Bandra –‘C’ Bandra(W), Mumbai – 400 050 for Shram Safalya SRA Co-operative housing Sofiety (Proposed) Sir, The S. R. Sfheme submited by you, through Arfhiteft Smt. Karuna Sable of M/s. Renaissanfe Arfhiteft of the plot fited under referenfe is prinfipally affepted, subjeft to following fonditions:-

1) That you shall submit proposal for grant of LOI within 3 months from date of refeipt of this leter.

2) All the required dofuments in the form of Annexure I to VI will be submited by you along with self-fertiffation of arfhiteftural tefhnifal paper and all sofiety dofuments fertifed by sofiety with Notarized.

3) You shall make nefessary payment for affeptanfe as per payment invoife atafhed herewith. If you fail to fomply the aforesaid requirements within stipulated period or within the extended time period that may be granted in fase of genuine hardship, then SRA may fonsider taking further suitable fourse of aftion as may be deemed ft. Sd/- 12.06.19 Exefutive Engineer-III Copy to:

1. Affount Offer – Finanfe Controller (SRA) for information & nefessary aftion.

2. M/s. Renaissanfe Arfhiteft 101, Silifon Residenfy, Plot No.22 Seftor-20, Pali Road, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai – 410 218. Sd/- 12.06.19 Exefutive Engineer-III

29. Affording to Mr. Daver, this ‘simultaneous’ professing of applifation of Respondent No.5 during pendenfy of proposal of Petitioner is illegal. Mr. Surana has relied upon leter of Exefutive Engineer dated 27 Defember 2018 to indifate that sufh sefond or subsequent proposal fan be entertained and professed simultaneously. The said leter reads thus: झोपडपटी पुखनवरसन पाशरकतम झोपुखपा/अभी/ कारार -१/ एच पशश्/ ७९१९२/२०१८ ्नााक 27 DEC 2018 झोपडपटी पुखनवरसन पाशरकतम, ्ुखाबई वषर: झोपडपटी पुखनवरसन पाशरकतम परतपतक क.१४४ नुखसात न वन पस्तावाबाबत, श्र्सरलर एस. आत. ए. सहकाती गदृससह न्ारम सास्था ( नरोलरत) न. भू. क. सी/१२२९ रुखनी शेतली तारन तोड, बााड्े (पशश्), ्ुखाबई-४०० ०५०. सा्भर: आपले ्.१०/१२/२०१८ चे पत क. झोपुखपा/ व न/एरसी- एनओसी-६८ ३ / २०१८/२२६०८. ्हो्र, वकासकाने झोपडपटी पुखनवरसन पाशरकतमात एखा्रा झो.पुख. रोरनेबाबत पस्ताव ्ाखल कतताना झो.पुख. पाशरकतमाचरा परतपतक क.१४४ अ्वरे ्ाखल कतमे अिशभप्त आहे. स्त पस्ताव ्ाखल क े लरानातत वकासकास एसआतए चरा व वर वभागदाकडून पस्तावााबाबत ना-हतकत पत राती क े ले. राते व सवर वभागदाकडून ना-हतकत पत पार झालरानाततच पस्तावास स्वीक ृसस ती ्े रात रेते. रा कालावरी ्तमरान रत तराच रोरनेकतीता ्ुखसऱरा वकासकाने पस्ताव ्ाखल क े ला तत स्त पस्ताब सुखध्ा झोपडपटी पुखनवरसन पाशरकतमाचरा व वर वभागदााकडे ना-हतकत प्ामपत ्ळमेकतीता पाठ व रात रेतो. ्ो्ही वकासकााप्की जरा वकासकास पथ् सवर वभागदााचे ना -हतकत प्ामपत ्ळते, तरााचा पस्ताव स्वीक ृसस त कतावा रासाठी ्ा. ्ुख्र काररकाती अिशभराता / झोपुखपा रााचराकडे ्ारूतीसाठी सा्त कतमे, अशी सवरसारातम प करा आहे. वषराा कत पकतमी ्ोन वकासकाकडून पस्ताव ्ाखल झालेले आहेत. आपला विासू, काररकाती अिशभराता-1 झोपडपटी पुखनवरसन पाशरकतमात

30. Thus, the Exefutive Engineer appears to have taken a view in his leter dated 27 Defember 2018 that it was permissible to simultaneously profess two proposals and the proposal in respeft of whifh NOCs are refeived frst fan be affepted and submited to CEO/SRA for approval. In my view, if this fourse of aftion is permited, the same would result in freation of unhealthy fompetition between diferent developers and would result in simultaneous fling of numerous proposals in respeft of same slum sfheme. Sufh fourse of aftion would also result in a rafe amongst diferent developers and ability of partifular developer to sefure NOCs would be the indifator for affepting the proposal and appointing developer for implementation of subjeft SRS. More importantly, sufh fourse of aftion would presuppose right of a sofiety to authorise multiple developers simultaneously, thereby resulting in uter fhaos, fonfusion and unhealth fompetition. This would flearly go against the spirit of judgment of this Court in Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari. In my view, therefore it would be impermissible for SRA to simultaneously profess two proposals in respeft of same slum sfheme. It is therefore nefessary that onfe the Head Clerk in the Engineering Department endorses an applifation/proposal for further profess, it would be impermissible for SRA to fonsider subsequently fled proposal till the earlier proposal is rejefted. The moment the Head Clerk in the Engineering Department makes an endorsement of non-pendenfy/non-affeptanfe of earlier proposal, every subsequently fled proposal would meet rejeftion at the level of that Head flerk itself who is supposed to rejeft the proposal if earlier proposal is under fonsideration. In my view therefore, it is impermissible to simultaneously profess multiple proposals for implementation of same slum sfheme even before the stage of ‘affeptanfe’ or during the stage of ‘sfrutiny’. The issues formulated in opening portion of the judgment are answered affordingly.

31. Having answered the issues raised in the Petition, now it is time to apply the same to the fafts of the fase. Petitioner’s proposal was submited on 1 August 2018 and within three months, three out of the fve refommendations on the requisite Annexures were issued. On 10 September 2019 Joint Registrar Co-operative Sofieties made refommendations on Annexure-V. On 3 November 2018, Deputy Colleftor made refommendations on Annexure-II. On 14 November 2018, the Finanfe Controller made refommendations on Annexure-III. It appears that refommendations of Distrift Superintendent of Land Refords on Annexure-IV, was slightly delayed and the same was issued on 31 May 2019. Thus, what remained was only the refommendations of Engineering Department of SRA, whifh are required to be professed by the fonferned Exefutive Engineer. The proposal of Petitioner was undoubtedly at a very advanfed stage of being ‘affepted’.

32. However, on affount of fomplaints made by Respondent No.6- Sofiety on 21 September 2018 and by Respondent No.5-Developer on 27 September 2018, the Co-operative Offer in the Co-operative Cell of SRA, entertained doubts about Petitioner’s flaim 50% fonsents and after sfrutinising the dofuments, he notifed that two diferent meetings were fondufted appointing Petitioner and Respondent No.5-Developers by the same Sofiety in gap of just 8 days. It was also notifed that the names of 26 members who voted in the meeting were fommon in both the Resolutions. A doubt was therefore entertained as to how many hutments are lofated at the site and it was felt nefessary to fonduft survey of struftures on the plot and thereafter determine whifh developer has majority by fondufting sefret ballot. This Note was put up by Co-Operative Offer, whifh was approved by Assistant Registrar, Joint Registrar, Sefretary-SRA and ultimately by the CEO/SRA. Thus, what has happened in the present fase is refonsideration of NOC issued by the Co-operative Department on Annexure-V in the light of fomplaints refeived from the Sofiety and Respondent No.5-Developer. To revisit the dates, the NOC/refommendations by Co-operative Department on Annexure-V was granted on 10 September 2008 and within 11 days, fomplaint was refeived from the Sofiety by the Cooperative Department. The Note of Co-operative Offer appears to have been approved by various hierarfhifal offers in the month of Oftober

2018. Thus what has essentially happened in the present fase is ‘refonsideration’ of NOC issued by the Co-operative Department on Annexure-V when it felt the need to verify exaft number of struftures on the plot and to re-verify the majority for fhoosing a Developer. In this regard it would be apposite to reprodufe the relevant pleadings in the afdavit of Exefutive Engineer, wherein it is stated as under:

6. I say that main grievanfes raised in the fomplaints of the Respondent No.6 Sofiety and Respondent No. 5 Developer went to the very root as to whether the Petitioner was aftually having a fonsent of more than 51% slum dwellers. I say that as per the initial report of the Co-operative Department dated 10.09.2018, it was stated that there are 30 hutment Dwellers of the Respondent No.6 proposed Sofiety and the Petitioner was having fonsent of around 56%. However, the fomplaints of the Respondent No.6 proposed Sofiety and Respondent No.5 Developer stated that the Respondent No.6 Sofiety fonsisted of 36 hutment dwellers and around 27 hutment dwellers fonsented with the Respondent No.5 Developer and the meeting dated 01.07.2018 on the basis of whifh Petitioner submited his proposal never took plafe. Further. there was also a question as to, whether to firfumvent the mandatory requirement of 51% fonsent the proposal of the Petitioner fonsisted of only 30 members and not 36 members as per the flaim of the Respondent No.6 Sofiety and Respondent No.5 Developer.

7. I say that as fomplaints primarily involved the Co-Operative Department of the Respondent SRA as the same revolved around the number of fonsents as well as influsion and exflusion of the Slum Dwellers, the Co-Operative Department prepared a report stating that as both the Developers were flaiming support of majority of Slum Dwellers, it was nefessary to determine the primary question whether as to between both the Developers, who was having majority of more than 51%, and henfe it refommended that as per firfular 169 of SRA, voting in the presenfe of SRA offial be done. The offe note dated prepared by the Co-Operative Department of the Respondent SRA, is hereto annexed marked as Exhibit 4. The Copy of the Cirfular 169 issued by the Co-Operative Department of the Respondent SRA is hereto annexed an marked as Exhibit 5. I say that thereafter offe note dated 11.10.2018 was put forth before the Sefretary, SRA as well the Chief Exefutive Offer, SRA. I say that as the issue involved was to the basif foundation as to the number of Slum Dwellers in the Sfheme as well as the aftual fonsents, the CEO, SRA approved the aftion for taking meeting in the presenfe of SRA Offial. It is in these firfumstanfes that the Co-Operative Department submited offe note dated 11.10.2018 for geting approval of the CEO, SRA for falling a meeting of the members of the Respondent No.6 proposed Sofiety. This meeting fan be said to be nothing but a step in sfrutiny of the Petitioner's proposal to fnd out whether the same is fomplete and whether the Petitioner had the support of requisite number of Slum Dwellers. I say that at the time when the meeting was falled i.e 04.02.2019, the Petitioner had not been granted NOC by CTSO, SRA. The meeting of the Sofiety was falled as per the provisions of Cirfular 169 for taking a defision as to whether the proposal of the Petitioner had the support of requisite slum dwellers so as to be a fomplete proposal.

8. I say that in furtheranfe of approval granted by Hon'ble CEO, SRA, the further steps as to issuanfe of publif notife and fondufting a meeting was held. The Copy of the Publif Notife dated 04.02.2019 is hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit 6. I say thereafter the Co-operative Department of Respondent SRA by their leter dated 25.02.2019 informed the Exefutive Engineer. SRA that as per the meeting fondufted on 20.02.2019, 23 hutment dwellers of the Respondent No.6 proposed Sofiety were present for the meeting and all of them voted in favour of the Respondent No.5 Developer. Thereby showfasing that Respondent No.5 Developer was having the aftual fonsent of around 74%. The Copy of the Leter dated 25.02.2019 is hereto annexed and marked as. Exhibit 7.

33. This is how the Co-operative Department has afted on Cirfular No.169 of CEO/SRA relating to profedure to be followed by Co-operative Department relating to fonduft of general body meetings. Cirfular NO. 169 reads thus: Ikfji=d Øekad % 169 fo”k;%& iquoZlu;kstusrhy >ksiMh/kkjdkaph loZlk/kkj.k lHkk] laLFkkaph uksan.kh;kckcrph dk;Zi/nrhlanHkZ%& izkf/kdj.kkdMhy laLFkk uksan.kh o loZlk/kkj.k lHksckcr fuxZfer dj.;kr vkysyh ifji=d Øekad 20]57]59]72]80]120] 148] o 151- >ksiMIkêh iquoZlu;kstuk fLodkjysY;k fu;kZftr lgdkjh laLFkkaps egkjk”Vª lgdkjh laLFkk vf/kfu;ekrhy rjrqnhuqlkj uksan.kh] izkf/kdj.kkdMhy ifji=dh; lqpaukizek.ks R;kaP;k ?;ko;kP;k loZlk/kkj.k lHkk o lnjhy lHkkaph dk;Zi/nrh;kckcr;kiwohZp fuxZfer dj.;kr vkysys ifji=d Øekad 20]57]59]72]80]120] 148] o 151- gs jÌ d#u lnjhy dk;Zi/nrhe/;s lqlq=rk vk.k.;klkBh,df=r lq/kkfjr dk;Zi/nrh lnjhy ifji=dk}kjs fuf’pr dj.;kr;sr vkgsv½ fu;ksftr lgdkjh x`gfuekZ.k laLFks}kjs fodkld o okLrqfo’kkjn;akph fu;qDrh dj.;kr;sowu izkf/kdj.kkP;k dk;Zi/nrhuqlkj ufou >ksiMIkêh iquoZlu izLrko nk[ky dj.;kr;srkslnjhy izLrko fLodkjY;kuarj;kstusrhy >ksiMh/kkdkjakph x`gfuekZ.k laLFkk ukasn.kh gksbZi;Zar lnjhy fu;ksftr laLFkk dk;Zjr vlrs R;k fu;ksftr laLFksP;k dkedkt ikjn’kZdi.ks ikj ikMkos;klkBh lnjhy fu;ksftr laLFksus njo”khZ 30 lIVascj iwohZ;kstusrhy elqnk ifjf’k”V &2 e/khy >ksiMh/kkjdkaph loZl/kkj.k lHkk lkscrP;k tksMi= & v e/khy fo’ks”k lwph o dk;Zi/nrhuqlkj ?ks.ks R;kauk ca/kudkjd jkghy- R;kpcjkscj lnjhy lHksph uksVhl o lHkspk dk;Zo`rkar izkf/kdj.kkP;k lgdkj foHkkxkr nk[ky dj.ks ca/kudkjd jkghyc½ ifjf’k”V &2 fuxZfer dsY;kuarj iquoZlu;kstusrhy lgdkjh x`gfuekZ.k laLFkkaps uko vkj{k.k o uksan.khiwoZ loZlk/kkj.k lHksps vk;kstu d{kkekQsZr izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjÚ;kaph fu;qDrh d#u tksMi= c e/;s ueqn dsysY;k fo”k; if=dsoj fu.kZ; ? ks.;k;klkBh dj.;kr;sbZy-,dk;kstusP;k fifjf’k”V&2 e/;s,dkis{kk vf/kd fu;ksftr x`gfuekZ.k laLFkkaps lHkkln R;kaP;k laLFkkfugk; n’kZfoysys vlY;kl izR;sd laLFkslkBh Lora= lHkk vk;ksftr dj.;kr;sbZylnjhy lHksph dk;Zdze fi=dsrhy fo”k; Øa 1 ckcr xqIr ernku >kY;kuarj v/;{k Lfkku uofuokZfpr eq[;izorZd;kaps jkghy o izf/kd`r vf/kdkjh gs fujh{kd Eg.kwu mifLFkr jkgrhylnjhy lHkk >kY;kuarj lgdkj d{kkrQsZr fu;ksftr ukao vkj{k.kkP;k izLrkokl ekU;rk ns.;kr;sbZy o laLFksl cWad [kkrs m?kM.;kl ijokuxh ns.;kr;sbZyd½ mijksDr c e/;s ueqn dsY;kizek.ks ukao vkj{k.kkl eatwj fnY;kuarj iquoZlu;ksTkusP;k lgdkjh x`gfuekZ.k laLFksph uksan.kh foghr dkyko/khr egkjk”Vª lgdjh laLFkk vf/kfu;ekrhy rjrqnhuqlkj lgdkj d{kkrQsZ dj.;kr;sbZy- M½ iquoZlu;kstusP;k izHkkoh vaeyctko.khlkBh vko’;d vlY;kl uksan.khd`r fdaok fu;ksftr laLFksph loZlk/kkj.k lHkk izkf/kdj.kkus fu;qDr dsysY;k izkf/kd`r vf/kdkÚ;kekQsZr cksyfork;srhyb½ uksan.khd`r lgdkjh x`gfuekZ.k LkaLFkk egkjk”Vª lgdkjh laLFkk vf/kfu;e o laLFksph mifo/kh;krhy rjrqnhuqlkj R;kaP;k fo’ks”k loZlk/kkj.k lHkk ?ks.;kl Lora= jkgrhyijarq R;kaP;k 30 LkIVascjiwohZ gks.kkÚ;k okf”kZd loZlk/kkj.k lHksr >ksiMIkêh iquoZlu;kstusP;k dkekpk vk<kok gk fo”k; ca/kudkjd jkghybZ½ izkf/kdj.kkekQsZr vk;ksftr dj.;kr;s.kkÚ;k loZ loZlk/kkj.k lHkk lkscr tksMi= & d e/khy dk;Zi/nrhuqlkj vk;ksftr dj.;kr;srhy o lnjhy lHkspk [kpZ izkf/kdj.kkekQsZr dj.;kr;sbZy o R;kuarj;kstUksP;k fodkldkdMwu rh jDde [kpZ Eg.kwu olwy dj.;kr;sbZyeq[; dk;Zdkjh vf/kdkjh >ksiMIkêh iquoZlu izkf/kdj.k] eqcabZ

34. Thus present fase does not involve ‘simultaneous’ professing of proposals of Petitioner and Respondent No.5. It appears that when Respondent No.5 submited the proposal on 12 September 2018, the same was rejefted by the Head Clerk vide leters dated 19 September 2018 and 1 November 2018 on the ground that proposal of Petitioner was already submited in respeft of the same slum sfheme. Thus the Head Clerk forreftly followed the profedure under Cirfular No.144. Mr. Daver’s fontention of sufh rejeftion having atained fnality merits no fonsideration as the Head Clerk does not defide merits of the proposal. The Head flerk only performs ministerial job of verifying whether earlier proposal is pending or affepted. What happened subsequently was ‘refonsideration’ of NOC issued by Co-operative Department. The Cooperative Department while refommending Annexure-V is required to sfrutinise all the dofuments and give its opinion. In the present fase, the Co-operative Department, after giving its refommendations on 10 September 2018 on Petitioner’s proposal entertained a doubt about genuineness of flaim in Petitioner’s proposal about 50% fonsents and defided to fonduft voting by sefret ballot so as to asfertain the forreft position. Affordingly, Notife was issued by the Co-operative Offer fonvening meeting of hutment dwellers on 20 February 2019 for fondufting voting by sefret ballot. After fonduft of the said meeting, the Joint Registrar submited a report dated 25 February 2019 to the Exefutive Engineer reporting that Respondent No.5 refeived 23 votes out of 31 hutment dwellers (74.19%). Thus, what has happened in the present fase mere ‘refonsideration’ of NOC by the Co-operative Department and not ‘simultaneous professing’ of proposals of two developers. Thereafter, the proposal of Respondent No.5 was professed. It appears that Annexure-III was issued by the Finanfe Department on 1 May 2019. Annexure-II was refommended by the Deputy Colleftor on 27 May 2019. Annexure-IV was refommended by City Survey Department on 20 Marfh 2019. As observed above, the report of the Joint Sefretary was submited on 25 February 2019 and the same was treated as refommendation on Annexure-V. Thus, the entire professing of the proposal of Respondent No.5 was made after Co-operative Department ‘refonsidered’ its NOC/refommendation. This shows that there is no ‘simultaneous fonsideration’ of two proposals in the present fase.

35. Therefore, there is no violation of ratio of the judgment in Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari as further disfussed in Atesham Ahmed Khan. Relianfe is also plafed by Mr. Patil on the judgment of Division Benfh of Platinum Realty (supra) whifh is about the date on whifh unique fomputerisation number is to be given on a partifular proposal. In my view, the judgment would not be of mufh assistanfe to the fafts of the present fase as this is not a fase of simultaneous professing of two proposals. AGRC has relied upon judgment of this Court in Lokhandwala Infrastrufture Private Ltd. (supra). However, as rightly submited by Mr. Daver the judgment is rendered in pefuliar fafts and firfumstanfes of that fase where there was fabrifation in signatures of members. In the present fase, the Co-operative Department has fondufted general body meeting of the sofiety under its aegis and has given its refommendation in favour of Respondent No.5-Developer.

36. Considering the pefuliar fafts of the present fase where two general body meetings were shown to have been fondufted in short gap of 8 days (GBR dated 1 July 2018 in Petitioner’s favour and 8 July 2018 in favour of Respondent No.5) the Co-operative Department has taken a defision to refonsider its NOC by verifying the number of hutments at the site and to fonduft voting by sefret ballot. This profedure adopted by Co-operative Department of SRA appears to have ensured seleftion of Developer for implementation of subjeft SRS in a fair manner. I therefore do not fnd any reason to interfere in the impugned defision of the AGRC.

37. If therefore fnd the defision of AGRC dated 6 September 2021, approval dated 12 September 2019 granted by the Exefutive Engineer (SRA-III) to proposal of Respondent No. 5, Notife dated 4 February 2019 direfting fonduft of re-eleftion for appointment of Developer as well as the result of re-eleftion held on 12 February 2019 for implementation of subjeft SRS to be unexfeptionable. Writ Petition is thus devoid of merits and must fail. Writ Petition is affordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to fosts.

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

38. After the Judgment is pronounfed, Mr. Daver prays for stay on the issuanfe of LOI for a period of 8 weeks. The request is opposed by Mr. Surana on the ground that during pendenfy of the present petition, there was no interim relief in favour of Petitioner. In that view of the mater, the prayer for stay for issuanfe of LOI is rejefted.

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.