Siddharth Constructions v. The State of Maharashtra

16. One of the obligation attached to the LoI is the obligation of the developer who holds a LoI to make arrangements for the eligible slum dwellers after they are evicted from the slum structures until they are put in possession of the rehab tenements. This interim arrangement may take different forms. Some may be paid a transit or temporary rent. Others may be accommodated in transit buildings (in which case they would not be entitled to transit rent, this being a payment in lieu of transit accommodation). There is also a provision in the LoI, evidently to safeguard the interest of the eligible slum dwellers, that a specified amount of transit rent must be paid in advance.

17. Siddharth Constructions says that between 2007 and 2008 it made transit rent payments to about 130 eligible slum dwellers while the rest were shifted to a transit camp constructed on the property. We note that the transit camp is not to be confused with rehabilitation tenements. The camp is a temporary provision made on site. This is often required because a site may be developed (or even cleared) in stages or phases. It may be possible, therefore, to initially put up a transit accommodation building, shift some eligible slum dwellers into that building, and then once the rehabilitation tenements are complete, to move the slum dwellers into their final permanent rehabilitation tenements, after which the transit camp building will be demolished, and the site cleared for further development according to the sanctioned plans.

18. Mr Kadam claims that for the next five years until 2013, Siddharth Constructions was “hobbled” in the progression of its scheme and its implementation by the slum dwellers. Proceedings had to be taken under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act. Those details are unimportant for our purposes today. Another factor to which he points repeatedly is that in 2010, apparently in deference to demand or request from the Society, and also consequent upon change in law, the rehabilitation tenement area was increased from 225 sq ft to 269 sq ft. Let us pause for a moment to understand the implications of this. These are rehabilitation homes or commercial spaces being offered, free of cost, to those slum dwellers who are eligible. It is the obligation of the developer to construct these rehabilitation tenements. Evidently, the area of each tenements cannot be a subject of a negotiation with individual slum dwellers because no project will start. That is why the area to which each eligible slum dweller is entitled in the rehabilitation tenements is stipulated and specified by law. The developer has to plan the project accordingly. The developer is promised or assured a commercial benefit as consideration for building the rehabilitation tenements. This takes the form what are called free sale components or free sale units, which the developer may then sell in the open market to recoup costs and make the commercial gains. Of course the free sale component is directly proportional to the number of eligible persons: the more the eligible persons, the more the free sale units. To prevent artificial inflation of these numbers, there is in place a system of survey, assessment of eligibility, scrutiny, and of certifying those eligible. It is by no means fool-proof (or tamper proof), but it is better than nothing. Broadly, that is the overarching scheme contemplated by this kind of redevelopment.

19. Siddharth Constructions says that its proposal to increase the tenements area to 269 sq ft per eligible rehabilitation tenements remained pending until 9th January 2012. By that time, Siddharth Constructions had undertaken some construction of rehab building No.3. That construction had been designed on the basis of each tenement being of 225 sq ft. The increased tenement size mandate meant that Siddharth Constructions had to demolish rehab building No.3. By March 2012, says Siddharth Constructions, it had constructed two rehab buildings and it had rehabilitated 126 slum dwellers. Another 110 were in transit camps. Another 119 slum dwellers were required to be paid rent.

20. The scheme admittedly required Siddharth Constructions to construct a Buddha Vihar and social welfare centre of 1158 sq ft. Siddharth Constructions says that it constructed a much larger facility of 2500 sq ft.

21. By 4th June 2013, the entire site had been cleared.

22. Mr Kadam says that there seemed to be no end to Siddharth Constructions’ development woes. Unexpectedly, the Airport Authority of India (“AAI”) restricted the maximum permissible height of the construction to 256 sq mts. above ground level and this, Siddharth Constructions says, rendered the entire project unviable. Siddharth Constructions made a representation to AAI to revise the height approval for the rehabilitation buildings and also, evidently, for the free sale buildings.

23. As if that was not bad enough, Mr Kadam says, there came into 2015 a Draft Development Plan which proposed three roads passing straight through the property and further impeding development. Siddharth Constructions says that it wrote to the Society pointing out that these proposed development roads would come in the way of development.

24. At item no.18 in the list of dates that Mr Kadam has given us is an entry against 31st August 2015. This is the date when Siddharth Constructions says it wrote to the CEO, SRA seeking his intervention because a “section of slum dwellers remained noncooperative and were actively resisting the scheme’s implementation”. We asked Mr Kadam what this meant. The answer was that there were litigations and disputes at various levels. But Mr Kadam agreed that there was on site no impediment in the form of slum dwellers refusing to vacate. The site itself had been cleared two years earlier by 4th June 2013.

25. Perhaps in order to find some viable way out, Siddharth Constructions came up with a new proposal. This was to club the present slum rehabilitation scheme of 6th respondent Society with that of another scheme for another society (Samrat Ashok CHS) at CTS No.3670 to 3754 at Kolekalyan. This would have meant obtaining a fresh LoI. Mr Kadam’s note clarifies what this meant was that members of Samrat Ashok CHS would be rehabilitated on the present plot while the 6th Respondent Society’s members would not be prejudiced in many manner. They would still be rehabilitated in situ.

26. Between 2016 and 2018, there was at least one positive development. The revised draft development plan was abandoned and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“MCGM”), the planning authority for Greater Mumbai under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”) issued a fresh notice for a revised draft development plan (“DP”). But this revised draft development plan also proposed a DP road through the property in question. Siddharth Constructions again made a representation to delete this DP road reservation.

27. On 9th March 2016, Siddharth Constructions entered into a development agreement with Paramvir Real Estate (“Paramvir”) for the development of free sale component of the subject rehabilitation scheme. This is where Dr Sathe and Mr Samdani (in the two matters) enter the picture for their client as a financier to Paramvir.

28. The present Society objected to Siddharth Constructions’ proposal for clubbing two schemes. On 25th January 2018, Siddharth Constructions sought that two schemes not be clubbed. An order to that effect followed on 25th April 2018.

29. Until then, the question of height restriction imposed by the AAI was still unresolved. On 19th June 2018, the AAI granted a NoC for the whole plot, allowing the development up to a height of

69.14 meters.

30. But, up to this stage, what of Siddharth Constructions’ obligations to the eligible slum dwellers ? In January and February 2020, responding to a query from the SRA, Siddharth Constructions said that it had made payment of rent to the eligible slum dwellers.

31. We come next to a document on which Mr Kadam lays much emphasis. This is a revised LoI dated 7th July 2020 issued to Siddharth Constructions. It undoubtedly increased the area of the rehabilitation component. A copy of this is at Exhibit “S” at page 341 of the petition paper book. Item 1 of the revised LoI makes it clear that all the conditions of the LoI of 30th May 2015, etc would continue and would require compliance at appropriate stages. Clause 3 specified the built up area of the sale and rehabilitation units. The revised LoI was in respect of a proposed revised slum rehabilitation scheme and was based on documents submitted by Siddharth Constructions. A tabulation showed the revised parameters. Clause 7 shows that all the conditions mentioned in the certified Annexure remained and had to be complied with. Clause 10 then set out the time period for completion of the project from the date of issuance of the commencement certificate to the first rehab building. Any extension had to be after an order from the CEO of SRA under Clause 11. Importantly, Clause 27 said that conditions in the Government Circular of 28th August 2019 would continue to apply.

32. We are not persuaded to accept the argument that this revised LoI had the result, apart from anything else, of effacing or eradicating any defaults that might have already been committed by Siddharth Constructions. That seems to be the tenor of the submission made based on this document. It cannot be accepted for more than one reason. The obligation to pay transit rent is a critical one, for those found eligible under the scheme cannot be expected to make do from their own resources. This is not the statutory intent nor its purpose. Every developer who holds a LoI under the Slum Rehabilitation Project, knows this even before he puts in a proposal or signs the development agreement. Indeed, if this is viewed from the lens of a contractual arrangement, then, it is clear that the free sale component is consideration for the performance by the developer of obligation to the slum dwellers, a critical component of which is the payment of transit rent. We do not see how it is possible for any developer at any stage to say that it is entitled to the commercial benefit (derived from the free sale components), but is under no obligation to perform its contractual duties under its development agreement, LoI or the applicable government circulars and policies. Critical amongst these, as we have noted, is the payment of transit rent. If, therefore, there are arrears of transit rent, this becomes an important factor in deciding whether or not a developer should be entitled to continue.

33. In August 2020, there was some issue about the structural stability of the transit camp constructed by Siddharth Constructions. That may not be immediately material for our purposes. What is, however, important is that on 9th September 2020, the Assistant Registrar, SRA held an hearing regarding the delay on the part of Siddharth Constructions in paying advance rent. On 20th November 2020, Siddharth Constructions told the SRA that it had delivered cheques for advance rent to the Society’s members. A copy of this document is at page 354 of the petition.

34. On 18th February 2021, Siddharth Constructions wrote to the SRA referring to a meeting held a few days earlier on 4th December

2020. This was in the context of the Society’s approval to plans for the rehabilitation building. We note this because it is one of Mr Kadam’s arguments that the Society had not approved these plans. Siddharth Constructions sought the intervention of the SRA to expedite the process.

35. We are passing over the issue of repairs to the transit buildings. Not much turns on this. Between March 2021 and August 2021, Siddharth Constructions seems to have complained that the Society was “obstructing it”. This so called obstruction took the form of the Society asking for a larger Buddha Vihar and for repairs to the transit camp. The issue of Buddha Vihar size and the repairs to the transit building are not factors that will detain us. Yet the record does reveal that one of the Society’s objection was that Project Affected Persons from another project were being sought to be accommodated on site in the present project. There were said to be 126 such members.

36. The next document of immediate relevance to the present discussion is of 27th September 2021. This is a notice issued by the CEO, SRA under Section 13(2) of the Slum Act. Siddharth Constructions was directed to remain present on 8th October 2021. A copy of this notice is annexed at page 387 with an accompanying translation. The document inter alia notes at the forefront that there were arrears of 12 to 14 months’ rent payable to a total 113 eligible shifted hut-holders. The aggregate amount then in arrears was Rs.2,03,40,000/-. The transit camp was said to be in a very poor condition and without repairs for years. It is for these reasons that the CEO, SRA proposed action under section 13(2) of the Slum Act.

37. A hearing was held on 8th October 2021. There is a roznama at Page 67 of the IA. The CEO, SRA issued directions to Siddharth Constructions to immediately start work of repairs of the transit buildings. He also directed Siddharth Constructions to deposit Rs.2,55,60,000/- with the SRA. This was a consolidated figure of already accumulated arrears of the transit rent and the advance rent that was compulsorily payable.

38. At page 380 of the petition’s paper book, we find a copy of the written submissions filed by Siddharth Constructions before the SRA. This refers to the hearing on 8th October 2021. There are the not unexpected complaints that Siddharth Constructions was being opposed by the Society and, too, a mention of other alleged impediments, some of which we have referred to earlier. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of this written submissions are crucial: “8. Amount of Rs.2,03,000/- has been mentioned in the letter issued by for paying arrear of rent of the members of the society. However, as per your order, we are ready to deposit Rs.2,55,60,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Fifty Five Lakh Sixty Thousand only) with the authority by HDFC Bank’s Pay Order No.553102 dated 11-10-2021 drawing the same in the name of Slum Rehabilitation Authority. Copy of the said Pay Order is enclosed herewith. By this Pay Order rent of the members upto December, 2021 can be paid.

9. Sir, during the discussion had in your office/ room in December, 2020 we had mentioned that hereafter rent will be paid only after permission to start the work is received by us. However, till date the society has not co-operated and we could not start the work. As work is not started on time, we do not receive timely credit from financial institutions and delay causes in paying the rent. We have been paying only rent in the scheme of the society since last 8 years. The financial viability of the scheme has been reduced due to non-completion of work. It is no longer affordable only to pay rent to the members without allowing us to work on the scheme.” (Emphasis added)

39. This is important because there is the clearest possible admission that there were in fact arrears of rent. Siddharth Constructions was complying only because the CEO, SRA had directed it to do so. Paragraph 9 and especially the portion emphasized above, is a statement by Siddharth Constructions purporting to impose a condition subject to which alone it was prepared to pay rent thereafter. Siddharth Constructions said that hereafter rent would be paid only after it received permission to start work. The last two sentences of paragraph 9 are equally important. Siddharth Constructions admitted that from its perspective, the scheme was no longer financially viable, and it could not afford to pay rent in this fashion. If there was any doubt about this, it is put to rest by last paragraph 3 at page 386 which we will separately quote below:

3. Rent should be paid to the members by the Authority only after the permission is given by the society by approving necessary plans.

40. We do not see how it was at all possible for Siddharth Constructions to impose conditions of this nature.

41. On the Section 13(2) notice there was a hearing on 21st December 2021. Siddharth Constructions claims that the CEO, SRA asked it to deposit a pay order with SRA. Siddharth Constructions says that pursuant to a premium demand Siddharth Constructions also paid an amount of Rs.26.19 crores some time in December 2021. Then, on 3rd January 2022, it deposited a pay order of 11th October 2021 in the amount of Rs.2,55,60,000/-. A copy of the relevant document is at page 68 of the IA. This is a covering letter from Siddharth Constructions. Again, Siddharth Constructions agreed that it was bound to pay rent to Society on time.

42. It seems that the SRA did not deposit the pay order within its validity period and Siddharth Constructions submitted a fresh pay order of 13th January 2022 for the entire amount of Rs.2,55,60,000/-. This was confirmed by Siddharth Constructions’ letter of 21st January 2022, a copy of which is at page 419. A translation of this document is at page 420-A.

43. Then came the 27th January 2022 order of the CEO SRA under section 13(2) of the Slum Act. A copy of this is at pages 421 to 430 of the petition’s paper book. The Society was the applicant before the CEO. The facts are set out in the forefront. The arguments of both sides were noted. Then followed reasons (from page 426). There was first a review of the admitted facts. The CEO SRA noted that the project had been sanctioned some 17 years earlier. His order notes the number of eligible slum dwellers was 355 of the total surveyed. In the time since, two rehab buildings had been put up and 126 slum dwellers had been rehabilitated. There was also transit camp at site. But, importantly (at page 426), there was a finding returned that since 2012 — and this is an order of 27th January 2022, i.e., 10 years down the road, construction work at site had totally stopped.

44. The CEO noted the principal contention of the Society that Siddharth Constructions was irregular in paying the rent. The Society had been complaining about this since 2017. The CEO SRA also noted that in its letter of 21st August 2021, to which we have referred earlier, Siddharth Constructions admitted that arrears had mounted to Rs.2,03,42,000/-. The facts regarding the deposit of Rs.2,55,60,000/- were noted. But the CEO SRA found that although that deposit had been made, the record showed Siddharth Constructions was and had for some time been irregular in paying transit rent. The CEO SRA returned a finding that developers implementing a slum rehabilitation scheme are expected to pay advance rent regularly in accordance with a SRA Circular No. 153. For this reason, the CEO, SRA found substance in the complaint of the Society.

45. We pass over the question of the stability of the transit buildings. It appears that there was some controversy including as to whether the building only needed an epoxy coat or something more. That is not material for our purposes. Before the CEO SRA, Siddharth Constructions repeated its case that it was being constantly obstructed and impeded by the Society. The CEO SRA made an observation which is noted on page 428 that had this been so, the developer would normally have approached the SRA. But the record reflected that Siddharth Constructions had done nothing. The CEO SRA held that in SRA schemes, once the developer has agreed to development, then it is for the developer to sort out these matters and complete the scheme within a reasonable time. Over a period of 17 years, only 126 slum dwellers had been rehabilitated in two rehab buildings. Even those had been constructed in 2009 and

2012. Further, even for those, Siddharth Constructions had still not managed to obtain an occupation certificate. All construction activity had stopped since 2012. Apart from alleging that the Society was non-cooperative, there was nothing on record to justify an inordinate delay and non-performance. He held that SRA was bound to take action since it was a planning and management authority. He, therefore, terminated the appointment of Siddharth Constructions as a developer. He granted the Society liberty to appoint a new developer of its choice in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and the policy of the SRA. There was a direction to the Executive Engineer to appoint a government approved valuer to determine the actual expenses incurred by Siddharth Constructions on the project. The new developer would have to reimburse the amount so determined by the government approved valuer.

46. Siddharth Constructions complains that despite this, a few days later on 2nd February 2022 the SRA encashed the pay order. We find nothing either surprising or exceptional about this. This was Siddharth Constructions’ undoubted obligation towards the arrears of the transit rent and its obligation towards 12 months’ advance rent. Siddharth Constructions can hardly be heard to say that once there is an order under section 13(2) of the Slum Act terminating its appointment as a developer, it stood absolved of all previous obligations and liabilities.

47. Siddharth Constructions came to this Court against the CEO SRA’s order of 27th January 2022 in Writ Petition (L) No.5054 of

2022. That Writ Petition was disposed of on 11th April 2022 with a direction to Siddharth Constructions to file an appeal before the AGRC. The Society’s statement at that time was recorded that it would not then press for the appointment of the new developer.

48. Siddharth Constructions filed its Appeal No.1 of 2022 before the AGRC. It apparently expressed its readiness and willingness to deposit rent of Rs.2,05,20,000/- that was due after 27th January 2022 and until August 2022. Pausing here for a moment, this really puts to an end to the argument by Siddharth Constructions that SRA could not have encashed the previous demand draft. It also negates the submissions, if there is one suggested even implicitly, that Siddharth Constructions stood absolved of all liabilities.

49. On 3rd August 2022, the AGRC passed the order impugned in the present petition, a copy of which is at Exhibit “A” at page 83. This petition was then filed on 17th August 2022.

50. We come to the impugned order of the AGRC. Both sides were represented. The CEO SRA recused himself at the hearing, as he had to do. The AGRC impugned order contains an extremely elaborate narrative of the facts and a noting of the rival contentions and submissions. From paragraph 8 at page 95 we find AGRC’s views on the records that were produced before it and what its record showed. The narrative and the analysis go back to the origins of the project. There is noting of several decisions of this Court regarding slum rehabilitation schemes. For our purposes, leaving aside these citations, paragraphs 10 and 11 at pages 100 and 101 are important: “10. From the record it appears that, LOI was issued on 10.02.2006 to the Appellants. However, out of 355 eligible slum dwellers, only 126 slum dwellers have been rehabilitation in the 2 rehabilitation buildings constructed by the Appellant in 2009. Since the acceptance of the proposal around 17 years have passed but the subject S.R. scheme has not been fully implemented. Even the 2 rehabilitation buildings which have been handed over to 126 slum dwellers do not have occupation certificate till date. Though the subject land has been in possession of the Appellants since 2012 no steps in implementation of slum scheme has been taken. All slum dwellers continue to reside in transit accommodation or on rent and since then there is no construction activity on site. Despite a lapse of 10 years and vacant possession has been handed over to the Appellants.

11. The records indicates that the Appellants defaulted in payments of rents from time to time, the appellants have been irregular in payments of rent for which the slum dwellers have approached the CEO/SRA. The complaints of non-payment of rent have started since 2015. The Appellants by its letter dated 31.08.2015 admitted that the payment of rent and maintenance of transit is not feasible. During hearing in respect of non-payment of rent, CEO/SRA has given direction to Appellants to clear arrears of rent before 25.09.2018, the Appellants have admitted that there is arrears of rent. The Society submitted that the cheques of rent given by Appellants have been bounced. The Appellants contended that a pay order of Rs. 2,55,60,000/has been encashed by the SRA. However, it is undisputed fact that the Appellants failed to pay rent regularly to slum dwellers who are out of their homes since 2009. Circular 153 of SRA stipulates that a Developer implementing the S.R. scheme is expected to pay regular rent in advance. The Appellants failed to make payments to the slum dwellers. Even today, the arrears of rent of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- remains unpaid. Accordingly, the CEO/SRA’s finding that there is default on part of the Appellants due to non-payment of rent regularly is valid. The Transit Camp constructed on the property in 2007 is said to be in a dilapidated condition requiring maintenance and repair. On 14.08.2018, there was a meeting in the chamber of the CEO SRA and directions were given to the Appellants to complete pending repair and maintenance of transit camp and submit a structural report. On 01.03.2021 the Executive Engineer/SRA informed Appellants that the repair of transit camp is not done and the Appellants have not submitted Structural Audit Report. There is a certificate indicating that the camp is stable and transit camp is safe. However, the structural consultant had advised to apply epoxy coat on corroded the structural beams and provide bracket support from column to beam to enhance strength to structure. It is the grievance of the slum society that the same has not been done.”

51. These findings are based on an assessment of the factual record. To complete this portion of it, we note what the AGRC said in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 at page 102: “13. Since from the acceptance of proposal, a period of more than 17 years has passed till date, only 126 slum dwellers out of 355 eligible slum dwellers have been rehabilitated in 2 Rehabilitation Buildings in the year 2009 to 2012. However, no OC has been obtained by the appellants till date. Only 35% of subject S.R. scheme is completed. It is the grievance of the Appellants that the slum dwellers were non-cooperative but Respondent No. 5 Siddharth Colony Hitsanraskshan Society Ltd contended that Appellants have not filed any complaint before CEO/SRA in respect of the non-cooperating slum dwellers for implementation of subject S.R.Scheme till issuance of Notice under Section 13(2) of Slum Act.

14. The CEO/SRA after careful consideration of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Committee has come to the conclusion that there is inordinate delay and non-performance on the part of the Appellants. Accordingly, the order of the CEO/SRA terminating the development rights of the Appellants is justified. The Appellant’s right to reimbursement has been protected by the impugned order.

15. This Committee did not find any irregularities or infirmity in the impugned order dated 27.01.2012 passed by CEO/SRA. Therefore, said order does not require any interference by this Committee. Ad-interim stay granted by this Committee on 29.04.2022 in respect of impugned order dated 27.01.2022 passed by CEO/SRA is hereby stands vacated.”

52. Accordingly, while vacating the previous ad-interim stay of 29th April 2022 the AGRC dismissed Siddharth Constructions’ appeal.

53. We believe this petition to be completely misconceived. Although fashioned as a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is for all intents and purposes nothing but an attempt at a first appeal on facts and law. We are invited to reconsider the factual material, and to re-appreciate documentary evidence that was before both the CEO SRA and the AGRC. That is not and cannot be our remit under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Significantly, it is not shown to us how either of the decision making processes, i.e., of the CEO-SRA or of the AGRC, were in any way vulnerable. There is no procedural irregularity. Sufficient notice was clearly given. Siddharth Constructions was afforded all possible latitude and fullest opportunity to present its case. Before the AGRC, Siddharth Constructions was represented by Advocates. Case law was cited and discussed. The crucial aspect is about delay in completion and about the transit rent. There may be very many factors to the delay but here two aspects appear to us to be critical. The constant refrain of Siddharth Constructions has been that it was being obstructed or opposed by the Society. Yet, as the CEO SRA correctly pointed out, had that been the case, Siddharth Constructions could not have been a helpless by-stander. It had its remedy and could have approached the SRA at any time. It did nothing in that direction. Only after it was found already to be in default of obligations to pay arrears of transit rent did it come forward. Incidents such as changes in planning policy, permissions, requirements, height restrictions etc., are all matters that have to be factored in and cannot be attributed to the Society. Even there, as a matter of law, if a project is to run over time for any of these reasons, it is for the developer to obtain an extension of time. The delay cannot be offset as Siddharth Constructions has purported to do by falling into arrears of payment of transit rent and by refusing to pay the required rent in advance.

54. What is it that is canvassed before us to explain the default in paying rent regularly including advance rent? In fact, there is no answer to this at all. On the contrary, there are two admissions. The first is an admission of fact that there were indeed arrears of unpaid transit rent. The second is an admission on law and under a contractual obligation, because Siddharth Constructions has agreed unequivocally that it is bound to pay transit rent and to pay advance transit rent. Agreeing to do so after it has fallen into arrears is no answer at all. We find wholly unpersuasive the attempt by Siddharth Constructions to impose a further conditionality on its otherwise unqualified obligation by saying more than once that it would pay rent only if a certain permission was received or if certain objections were cleared. This cannot be a condition precedent to the paying of transit rent or advance rent.

55. The applicable section 13(2) of the Slum Act is to be found under Section 3D of the Slum Act. This is part of Chapter I-A that deals with the slum rehabilitation schemes. That chapter was introduced by way of an amendment of 1996. Section 3D applies the other Chapters of the Slum Act to the rehabilitation area with some modifications. It begins by saying that on publication of the slum rehabilitation scheme under section 3B(i), the provisions of other Chapters of the Slum Act would apply to any area declared as slum rehabilitation area subject to certain modifications. The original Section 13 under the Slum Act is entirely substituted by Section 3D(b)(iii) thus: “13. Power of Slum Rehabilitation Authority to develop Slum Rehabilitation Area. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (10) of section 12, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority may, after any area is declared as a Slum Rehabilitation Area, if the landholders or occupants of such area do not come forward within a reasonable time, with a scheme for redevelopment of such land, by order, determine to redevelop such land by entrusting it to any agency for the purpose. (2) Where on declaration of any area as a Slum Rehabilitation Area the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, is satisfied that the land in the Slum Rehabilitation Area has been or is being developed by the owner in contravention of the plans duly approved, or any restriction or conditions imposed under sub-section (10) of section 12, or has not been developed within the time, if any, specified under such conditions, it may, by order, determine to develop the land by entrusting it to any agency recognised by it for the purpose: Provided that, before passing such order, the owner shall be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why the order should not be passed.”

56. We are concerned in the present petition with section 13(2) of the Slum Act under Chapter I-A. This makes it clear, as emphasized above, that where there is violation of the conditions imposed under Section 12(10) or there was a contravention of the slum rehabilitation scheme or any condition specified in the approval or if the project has not been completed within the time specified, the CEO SRA may entrust it to any other agency or other developer recognized by it for that purposes. The CEO SRA has found and the AGRC has confirmed that there is contravention and there is delay. Neither can be disputed. The contravention is in fact admitted.

57. Once we arrive at his conclusion, there is simply no case made out for intervention at the instance of Siddharth Constructions either to the order of the AGRC or to the order of the CEO SRA.

58. Having regard to this circumstances we do not believe that there is any substance in the petition. It is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

59. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to make an order on the costs.

60. This order renders all interim applications infructuous and they are disposed of accordingly.

61. All Interim applications are disposed of. The petition and interim application are to be finally numbered for the statistical purposes without being required to remove office objections.

62. Due to an inadvertent error and some digital file data corruption, this order remained to be finalized. The delay is regretted. (Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J) (G. S. Patel, J)