Bombay High Court
Prabhakar Dhanu Pilke vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 June, 2024
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
2024:BHC-OS:8587-DB
Darshan Patil
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 10849 OF 2024
1. Prabhakar Dhanu Pilke
Age: 50 Occupation: Service
2. Habib Abdul Rahiman
Age: 31 Occupation: Shopkeeper
3. Aruna Prabhakar Jogale legal heir of
Prabhakar Laxman Jogle
Age: 56 Occupation: Housewife
Petitioner No. 1 to 3 residing at
Tanu Palkar Chawl, Near Yatri hotel, Jecuclub,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
4. Sarswati Keshav Pilke
Age: 78 Occupation: Retired
Kadam Chawl, Near Yatri hotel, Jacuclub,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
5. Mahadev Maruti Dingankar
Age: 55 Occupation: Service
Digankar Chawl, Near Yatri hotel, Jacuclub,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
6. Keshav Laxman Kadu
Age: 65 Occupation: Retired
7. Hira Govind Neman legal heir of
Savitri Govind Neman
Age: 58 Occupation: House Male
Page 1 of 23
13th June 2024
17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
8. Vaishali Shantaram Gurav
Age: 64 Occupation: Retired
9. Dashrath Bhikaji Ramane
Age: 44 Occupation: Service
Petitioner No. 6 to 9 residing at
Shiv Shakti Chawl, Near Janta Bakery,
Jacuclub, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
10. Satish Gopal Sawant
Age: 52 Occupation: Service
11. Sandesh Dhondu Mahadik
Age: 51 Occupation: Service
12. Shubhangi Aakaram Manayar
Age: 71 Occupation: Retired
13. Shashikala Kishor Majalkar
Age: 63 Occupation: Retired
14. Mahendra Kishor Majalkar legal heir of
Fulabai Mahadev Majalkar
Age: 38 Occupation: Self Employee
15. Sanjay Vasant Tirlotkar
Age: 52 Occupation: Service
16. Anita Dilip Bhadwalkar
Age: 61 Occupation: Housewife
17. Laxmi Ashok Bhadwalkar
Age: 54 Occupation: Housewife
18. Dnyaneshwar Mahadev Salkar
Age: 71 Occupation: Retired
Page 2 of 23
13th June 2024
17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
19. Sarswati Vishram Namaye
Age: 64 Occupation: Retired
Petitioner No. 10 to 19 residing at
Narayan Hase Chawl, near Vithal Mandir,
Jacuclub, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055
20. Krtimalini Balu Bhovad legal heir of
Balu Govind Bhovad
Age: 65 Occupation: Retired
21. Ratnaprabha Ramesh Batavale
Age: 69 Occupation: Retired
22. Kunda Dhondu Dhawde
Age: 57 Occupation: Housewife
Petitioner No.20 to 22 residing at
Sitaram Gurav Chawl, Near Vithal Mandir,
Jacuclub, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
23. Anita Suresh Manjalkar
Age: 57 Occupation: Housewife
Bhiku Narkar Chawl, Near Vithal Mandir,
Jacuclub, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
24. Dipali Deepak Jalvi legal heir of
Deepak Dattaram Jalvi
Age: 60 Occupation: Housewife
25. Harishchandra Shankar Manjalkar
Age: 63 Occupation: Self Employed
26. Sanjay Raghunaath Sagvekar
Age: 59 Occupation: Retired
27. Deepak Pushpakant Gurav legal heir of
Pushpakant Shankar Gurav
Age: 38 Occupation: Retired
Petitioner No. 24 to 27 residing at
Page 3 of 23
13th June 2024
17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
Bhiku Narkar Chawl, Near Vithal Mandir,
Jacuclub, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
28. Rehmat bi Mohammad Salim
Age: 77 Occupation: Retired
29. Balkrushna Govind Patro
Age: 51 Occupation: Business
30. Sushma Balkrushna Patro
Age: 45 Occupation: Housewife
31. Hetal Dinesh Vyas
Age: 42 Occupation: Service
Petitioner No. 28 to 31 residing at Sayad Ali
Chawl, Near Vithal Mandir, Jacuclub,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
32. Shila Parshuram Patil
Age: 56 Occupation: Self Employed
33. Shantaram Bandu Palkar
Age: 63 Occupation: Self Employed
Petitioner No. 32 to 33 residing at
Dhondu Rangwala Chawl, Near Vithal Mandir,
Jacuclub, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
34. Umesh Shantaram Palkar legal heir of
Draupadi Bandu Palkar
Age: 33 Occupation: Service
Gurav Chawl, Near Vithal Mandir,
Jacuclub, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
35. Chandrakant Dattaram Dongarkar
Age: 61 Occupation: Service
Bhanu Pilke Chawl, Jacuclub,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
Page 4 of 23
13th June 2024
17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
36. Jayashri Narayan Bakte legal heir of
Janki Babu Neman
Age: 71 Occupation: Retired
37. Dattaram Shankar Raut
Age: 64 Occupation: Retired
38. Murthy Narayan Rao
Age: 63 Occupation: Retired
39. Govind Hiralal Rotangan legal heir of
Hiralal Chetaji Rotangan
Age: 47 Occupation: Service
40. Chunnilal Kasa
Age: 55 Occupation: Shopkeeper
41. Kukuben Mauji Bera
Age: 42 Occupation: Housewife
42. Gajanan Mahadev Ghosalkar
Age: 58 Occupation: Business
43. Nanda Chandrakant Waghela legal heir of
Chandrakant Dayabhai Waghela
Age: 65 Occupation: Retired
44. Pradip Dashrathlal Goshi
Age: 54 Occupation: Service
45. Naresh Madanlal Jain
Age: 35 Occupation: Service
46. Harilal Nakshi Rambhiya
Age: 71 Occupation: Self Employed
47. Shantaram Dhondu Dhwade legal heir of
Sulochana Dhondu Dhawde
Page 5 of 23
13th June 2024
17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
Age: 55 Occupation: Service
48. Sambhaji Kisan Malusare
Age: 62 Occupation: Retired
49. Laxman Shantaram Gurav
Age: 51 Occupation: Service
Petitioner No. 36 to 49 residing at
Dhondu Rangwala Chawl, Near Vithal Mandir,
Jacuclub, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
50. Radharaju Pannaswami
Age: 75 Occupation: Retired
51. Kalawati Shyamnarayan Vishwakarma
Age: 75 Occupation: Housewife
52. Sanjay Shyamnarayan Vishwakarma
Age: 49 Occupation: Service
53. salmabi Shekh Ismail
Age: 54 Occupation: Retired
54. Gopaldas Sharda Prasad Choudhary
Age: 27 Occupation: Social Service
55. Shardaprasad Asharam Choudhary
Age: 69 Occupation: Social Service
56. Prakash Shivram Pavte
Age: 54 Occupation: Service
57. Kamla Pandurang Gurav
Age: 68 Occupation: Retired
58. Prakash Krishna Rane
Age: 55 Occupation: Service
Page 6 of 23
13th June 2024
17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
59. Alka Eknath Kulaye legal heir of
Eknath Sitaram Kulaye
Age: 56 Occupation: Service
Petitioner No. 50 to 59 residing at
Mukadam Chawl, Near Yatri hotel,
Jacuclub, Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
60. Babusingh Jaysingh Purohit
Age: 71 Occupation: Retired
61. Sajid Minaj Inamdar
Age: 44 Occupation: Driving
62. Maniram Shivnath Gupta
Age: 70 Occupation: Self Employed
63. Minuddin Shaikh
Age: 67 Occupation: Retired
64. Shabbo Shaikh legal heir of
Jamiruddin Amiruddin Shaikh
Age: 46 Occupation: Service
65. Maksud Ali Shaikh
Age: 58 Occupation: Retired
66. Yasmin Inamdar legal heir of Ajaj Inamdar
Age: 40 Occupation: Housewife
67. Rizwan Kabaria
Age: 35 Occupation: Service
68. Parwati Shankar Naik
Age: 85 Occupation: Retired
69. Sachin Nivrutti Kabir
Age: 32 Occupation: Service
Page 7 of 23
13th June 2024
17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
70. Ashwini Amit Ghanekar
Age: 33 Occupation: Service
71. Prakash Devras legal heir of
Shetty Nana Devras
Age: 34 Occupation: Self Employed
72. Shobhana Ramesh Geddam
Age: 49 Occupation: Service
73. Soni Mansaram Dingva
Age: 55 Occupation: Service
74. Kapuraram Kanhaji Ramina
Age: 40 Occupation: Service
Petitioner No. 60 to 74 residing at
Marathwada Society, Jacuclub,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai - 400055.
75. Jitendra Surendra Nagvekar
Age: 54 Occupation: Service
76. Akbar Mohammad Shaikh legal heir of
Mumtaj Mohammad Shaikh
Age: 54 Occupation: Service
Petitioner No. 75 to 76 residing at
Kutak Chawl, Jacuclub, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai - 400055.
77. Maya Premchand Verma legal heir of
Shamadevi Premchand Verma
Age: 51 Occupation: Service
78. Kusum Gurucharan Kanojia
Age: 62 Occupation: Retired
Petitioner No. 77 to 78 residing at
Pilluchi Chawl, Jacuclub, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai - 400055. ...Petitioners
Page 8 of 23
13th June 2024
17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra through Secretary,
Housing Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Building,
A.K. Marg, Bandra West, Mumbai - 400 051
3. The Addl. Collector (Enc. & Removal)
alias Appellate Authority under
Section 35 of SRA Act.
Mumbai Suburban Collectorate, 7th Floor,
Administrative Building, Bandra East,
Mumbai - 400 051
4. The Dy-Collector (Enc. & Rem.)
Alias Competent Authority, Bandra
Administrative Building, Bandra East,
Mumbai - 400 051
5. The Dy-Collector (Special Section)
Slub Rehabilitation Authority
Administrative Building, A.K. Marg,
Bandra East, Mumbai - 400 051
6. The Asst. Registrar (Westerb Suburb)
Cooperative Societies, SRA,
Ground Floor, Administrative Building,
A.K. Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400 051
7. M/s Arihant Construction Company,
Through its Partners,
R/o Bldg No. 46, S/4 Suprabhat CHS,
Gandhi Nagar, Opp. MHADA,
Bandra East, Mumbai - 400 051.
Page 9 of 23
13th June 2024
17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
8. Shri Sidhivinayak CHS (Prop)
Through its Chief Promoter
Jaku Club, Prabhat Colony Road No.9,
Santacruz East, Mumbai - 400 055 ...Respondents
ALONG WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 17726 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 10849 OF 2024
Laxman Shantaram Gurav ...Applicant
In the matter between
Prabhakar Dhanu Pilke and Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Vijay Kurle, for the Applicant/Petitioners.
Mr. Atul Vanarse, AGP, for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Vijay D. Patil, for Respondent No. 2-SRA.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Ms. Ashwini Jadhav , for Respondent
No.7.
Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w Mr. Abhijit Patil , for Respondent No.8.
CORAM M.S. Sonak &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 12th June 2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 13th June 2024 Judgment (per M.S. Sonak, J.):-
Page 10 of 2313th June 2024 17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
1. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and heard finally at the admission stage.
2. The Interim Application seeks a continuance of the ad-
interim relief dated 02nd April 2024 until the petition is heard and disposed of. The order dated 02nd April 2024 does not record the grant of any interim relief as such. However, it was admitted on the said date the demolition of the petitioners' structure, which was scheduled, was deferred based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the seventh respondent. There was a controversy over whether this statement was extended beyond 08th April 2024. Instead of addressing this controversy, the main Writ Petition itself was considered.
3. Mr Kurle learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in this case, the issue of eligibility of the petitioner to obtain benefits under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme ("SRA Scheme") has yet to be decided. He submitted that, with respect to some of the petitioners, a survey of their structures was not even carried out. He submitted that there was no clarity about the inclusion of the petitioners' names in Annexure II. He submitted that this is why, on 08th April 2024, this Court required the Slum Rehabilitation Authority ("SRA") and the developer to make an authenticated statement showing the names of 78 petitioners in tabulated form along with corresponding serial numbers and whether they have been found to be eligible or ineligible or whether their eligibility is yet to be determined.
Page 11 of 2313th June 2024 17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
4. Mr Kurle submitted that until the exercise of determining eligibility and conducting a survey was complete, the impugned orders dated 16th April 2022 directing the petitioners' eviction could not have been made. Mr. Kurle submitted that, in any case, such orders ought not be permitted to be executed until there is clarity on the issue of eligibility or otherwise to the petitioners.
5. Mr Kurle also tried to urge that the Letter of Intent ("LOI") at Exhibit 'A' issued, favouring the seventh respondent, was vulnerable because the seventh respondent did not have the means to undertake this development. He submitted that there are several infirmities in the LOI issued favouring the seventh respondent.
6. Without prejudice, Mr Kurle submitted that there were serious issues concerning the election and appointment of new office bearers of the eighth respondent. He submitted that the petitioner had made a representation dated 05th February 2024 to the sixth respondent, but such representation was not being disposed of. Mr Kurle, therefore, prayed for a direction on the sixth respondent to take a proper decision on the representation dated 05th February 2024.
7. Mr. Kurle submitted that the issue of eligibility of some of the petitioners was pending before the fourth respondent. He submitted that some of the petitioners who were judged as ineligible have appealed before the third respondent. He submitted that some time- bound directions ought to be issued to the third and fourth respondents so that they dispose of the proceedings expeditiously. He submitted that until then, none of the petitioners should be Page 12 of 23 13th June 2024 17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX evicted in pursuance of the impugned order dated 16th February 2024.
8. Mr Patil, Mr Khandeparkar and Mr Tamboly submitted that the issue of eligibility or otherwise cannot be linked with the issue of eviction of the petitioners in pursuance of the order dated 16th February 2024 made under Sections 33 and 38 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ("Slum Act"). Mr Khandeparkar relied upon this Court's order dated 06th January 2020 in Sabula Buden Khan and 15 Ors. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 7 Ors.1 in support of this contention.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the petition challenging the order made under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slum Act, the petitioners must not be allowed to question the SRA Scheme or the LOI issued to the developer. They relied on Andrade Motors Vs. Additional Collector (Eng./Rem), and Competent Authority and Others2 to support this contention.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in any event pursuant to this Court's order dated 08th April 2024, a detailed statement was filed in the Court. They referred to this Court's order dated 16th April 2024, which notices that such a statement was filed, and the matter was adjourned to 23rd April 2024 to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to check the details supplied.
1Writ Petition (L) No. 3371 of 2019 2 (2009) 3 Bom CR 120 Page 13 of 23 13th June 2024 17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
11. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the necessary survey was indeed carried out, and only after the survey was complete was Annexure II prepared and notified on 19th December 2017. Accordingly, they submitted that the very foundation of this petition, that there was no survey or that Annexure II was not prepared, was misconceived and the petition warrants summary dismissal.
12. Mr Khandeparkar pointed out that petitioners No. 33 and 55 had instituted Writ Petition (L) No. 8180 of 2024 to question the impugned order dated 16th February 2024 and pressed for interim relief therein. However, this interim relief was denied by an order dated 28th March 2024. Still, these two petitioners have now joined the present petition and are pressing for interim relief, which was already denied by the co-ordinate bench vide order dated 28th March 2024. He submitted that this is impermissible.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied upon the orders dated 04th April 2024 in Writ Petition No. 1580 of 2017 and 10th June 2024 in Writ Petition (L) No. 16992 of 2024 instituted by the present petitioners and submitted that even the conduct of the petitioners involving the repeated challenges to stall the implementation of SRA Scheme is an additional ground to dismiss the present petition.
14. Learned Counsel also pointed out that out of the 362 slum dwellers at the site, about 271 were judged eligible. This includes 29 out of the 78 petitioners in the present petition. They pointed out that 115 slum dwellers have already vacated their structures, and the notice dated 19th March 2024 is also impugned in this petition Page 14 of 23 13th June 2024 17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX issued to 69 slum dwellers. They submitted that the petitioners are unjustifiably delaying the implementation of the SRA scheme by filing multiple proceedings. For all the above reasons, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this petition ought to be dismissed.
15. Mr. Khandeparkar stated that transit accommodation rent has already been deposited with the SRA for the eligible slum dwellers. He submitted that the seventh respondent, though not legally bound, has also deposited eleven months' transit accommodation rent in respect of the petitioners who are adjudged as ineligible or whose eligibility is yet to be determined. He clarified that the deposit in respect of the ineligible petitioners or the petitioners whose eligibility is yet to be determined was a one-time measure to enable such petitioners to determine their eligibility within this period of eleven months. He submitted that the seventh respondent will pay the transit accommodation rent in case any of such petitioners are adjudged eligible. However, if adjudged as ineligible, the seventh respondent will not pay any further rent towards transit accommodation.
16. By way of rejoinder, Mr. Kurle submitted that Writ Petition (L) No. 8180 of 2024 was instituted in a representative capacity. He submitted that the names of petitioners No. 1 and 3 to 5 in the said petition were not mentioned in the notice dated 19th March 2024 issued by the SRA. Accordingly, no interim relief was granted. He submitted that afterwards, a decision was made by all the 78 petitioners to file the present petition in their individual capacity. He submitted that there was no suppression, as alleged by the respondents. He submitted that even after the order dated 28th Page 15 of 23 13th June 2024 17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX March 2024, limited ad-interim relief was granted to the present petitioners.
17. Mr. Kurle submitted that some reasonable time ought to be granted to the petitioners even though a statement has been made on behalf of the seventh respondent that the transit accommodation rents have been deposited with the SRA. He submitted that such reasonable time is necessary to withdraw such amounts and to obtain alternate accommodation. For all these reasons, Mr Kurle submitted that this petition should be admitted and interim reliefs, as prayed for, be granted.
18. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
19. At the very outset, we must note that these petitioners or at least most of them, had instituted Writ Petition No. 1580 of 2017 to question the notification under Section 14 of the Slum Act regarding this very slum development scheme. The co-ordinate bench of this Court dismissed this petition (Coram: G.S. Patel and Kamal Khata, JJ.) with an exemplary cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh). Neither has any interim relief been obtained from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, nor have the petitioners paid the cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- as directed.
20. In Writ Petition No. 1580 of 2017, the petitioners took out an Interim Application (L) No. 9956 of 2024 seeking a stay on the implementation of the impugned orders dated 16th February 2024 and 19th March 2024. This Interim Application was also dismissed by the order dated 04th April 2024, which was a common order dismissing the petition and the Interim Application.
Page 16 of 2313th June 2024 17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
21. In the above circumstances, the petitioners were duty-bound to have pleaded and disclosed the details about the order dated 04th April 2024, dismissing the Writ Petition No. 1580 of 2017 and the Interim Application (L) No. 9956 of 2024. Such non-disclosure would ordinarily invite a summary dismissal without adjudicating the various contentions on behalf of the Petitioners. However, extending some indulgence to the petitioners, we propose to evaluate Mr. Kurle's contentions on merits.
22. A reference is also required to be made to our order dated 10th June 2024 dismissing the Writ Petition (L) No. 16992 of 2024 instituted by some of the petitioners again questioning the order dated 16th February 2024 on the grounds almost similar to those which are now urged in this petition. By the said order dated 10th June 2024, such contentions were considered and rejected. Therefore, by adopting such reasoning in our order dated 10th June 2024, we are obliged to reject the almost similar contentions now raised by the petitioners in this petition.
23. Mr. Kurle's contention that the issue of eviction should be deferred until the eligibility of some of the petitioners is determined is quite misconceived. In Sabula Buden Khan (supra), the co- ordinate Division Bench (Coram: S.C. Dharmadhikari and R.I. Chagla, JJ.), such contention was squarely rejected. The Division Bench observed that SRA is not expected to wait till all claims of the slum dwellers at the site are decided, for then it will be impossible for the SRA, as well as the developer, to implement the project. Further, those who have voluntarily vacated their structures or handed them over for demolition to the developer and SRA cannot suffer merely because parties like the petitioners have yet to Page 17 of 23 13th June 2024 17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX establish and prove their eligibility. The Division Bench observed that the law is crystal clear. If the petitioners establish and prove their eligibility, they will be accommodated in the ongoing project by providing permanent alternate accommodation.
24. Besides, in terms of the statement submitted by the seventh respondent, no less than 29 out of 78 petitioners have been found to be eligible to obtain benefits under the scheme. Some of the petitioners have been found to be ineligible, and in respect of some others, their eligibility could not be determined either because their structures were found to be closed at the time of the survey or because they did not furnish necessary documents to the competent authority. The statement gives all the details sought by this Court in its order dated 08th April 2024. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the SRA, has also confirmed that the statement filed before this Court by the seventh respondent is correct and corresponds to the records with the SRA.
25. The contention that Annexure II was never prepared can also not be accepted. The statement gives the serial numbers at which the petitioners' names appeared in Annexure II. Besides, even the impugned order dated 16th February 2024 refers to Annexure II. Therefore, the contention that Annexure II was never prepared and that the evictions must be halted cannot be accepted.
26. Similarly, apart from alleging that no survey was conducted at the site, the petitioners have failed to substantiate this contention with any credible material. The fact that almost 29 out of 78 petitioners were judged as eligible implies that the survey was indeed conducted. Without such a survey, the names of all Page 18 of 23 13th June 2024 17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX petitioners would not have been reflected in Annexure II, and 29 out of 78 petitioners might not have been judged as eligible to avail of all the benefits under the scheme.
27. The statement filed by the seventh respondent refers to some of the petitioners whose eligibility could not be determined because their structures were closed at the time of the survey. Even such petitioner can always apply to the competent authority for determining their eligibility. Mr. Kurle submitted that such petitioners have already made representation to the fourth respondent, and such representation is pending. We propose to issue directions to the fourth respondent to dispose of such pending representation/s within four months from today to clarify the eligibility issue. However, as discussed above, the pendency of this issue is not a valid ground for interfering with the impugned order or stalling the petitioners' eviction and delaying the scheme's implementation.
28. Similarly, some of the petitioners who were adjudged ineligible by the fourth respondent have instituted appeals before the third respondent. Such appeals are pending before the third respondent. Accordingly, we propose to direct the third respondent to dispose of such appeals as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within four months from today so that there is clarity on the issue of such petitioners' eligibility.
29. Mr. Khandeparkar's statement made on behalf of the seventh respondent, which we accept, protects the interest of even those petitioners who have been adjudged ineligible or whose eligibility is yet to be determined. The seventh respondent has deposited transit Page 19 of 23 13th June 2024 17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX accommodation rents for about eleven months with respect to such petitioners as a one-time measure. Further, if any of such petitioners are adjudged as eligible, Mr Khandeparkar agreed that those who are adjudged as eligible would be paid a transit accommodation rent per the law. However, we are satisfied that until such issues are sorted out, petitioners cannot insist on continuing in the structures that have been ordered to be demolished so that the slum dwellers project can proceed and be completed expeditiously.
30. The record shows that this slum redevelopment scheme involves about 362 slum dwellers out of which 115 slum dwellers already vacated their premises. The impugned order dated 16th February 2024 concerns 112 slum dwellers, and the notice dated 19th March 2024 is issued only to 69 slum dwellers because the eviction process proceeds phase-wise. We have considered this aspect in our order dated 10th June 2024, disposing of Writ Petition (L) No. 16992 of 2024. On the grounds urged, therefore, no case is made out to question the impugned order dated 16th April 2024 and consequential notice dated 19th March 2024.
31. The interests of the petitioners have been sufficiently protected. The 29 petitioners who have been judged as eligible will get the transit accommodation rent, which the seventh respondent has already deposited with the SRA. The SRA must release this amount to the eligible petitioners as soon as possible and, in any event, not less than ten days from today upon compliance with the usual formalities.
32. Similarly, as a one-time measure, the seventh respondent has deposited eleven months' transit accommodation rent with the SRA Page 20 of 23 13th June 2024 17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX with respect to the petitioners who are adjudged ineligible or whose eligibility is yet to be determined. The SRA must release this amount to such petitioners as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within ten days from today. Besides, we are issuing directions to the third and fourth respondents to dispose of claims of eligibility of some of the petitioners pending before them as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within four months from today.
33. Regarding the relief in terms of prayer clause (c), we were considering issuing directions to the sixth respondent to dispose of the petitioners' representation dated 05th February 2024 in a time- bound manner. However, Mr. Patil, on instructions, submitted that the sixth respondent already disposed of the said representation by making an order dated 26th March 2024. The said order was handed over to Mr. Kurle, possibly by his instructing advocate in the Court itself. Mr Kurle explained that he was not aware of the said order dated 26th March 2024 until 12th June 2024, when the matter was argued. Now that representation has already been disposed of by order dated 26th March 2024, there is no question of granting any relief in terms of the prayer clause (c). But, we clarify that it is always open to the petitioner to take out such steps as may be available in the law regarding the order dated 26th March 2024 in case the petitioners are dissatisfied with the same.
34. The contention regarding the alleged invalidity of the LOI issued to the seventh respondent cannot be considered in this petition. In the first place, there is no challenge to the LOI in this petition. The interim relief in prayer clause (e) is misconceived because the interim relief is always in aid of final relief. Since there is no challenge to the LOI in this petition, there is no question of Page 21 of 23 13th June 2024 17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX staying the operation or implementation of the said LOI. In Andrade Motors (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that the authority under Section 33 of the Slum Act is not empowered to interfere with the final sanctioned scheme.
35. Any grant of indulgence as prayed for by Mr Kurle to any of the petitioners at this stage would not be appropriate mainly because such indulgence would be at the cost of the slum dwellers who have already vacated their premises so that slum development scheme is completed at the earliest. In any event, no case is made out by the petitioners for the grant of any interim relief under the law in the context of the impugned order dated 16th February 2024 and notice dated 19th March 2024.
36. For the above reasons, we dispose of this Writ Petition and Interim Application (L) No. 17726 of 2024 by making the following order:-
(a) The challenge to the impugned orders dated 16th February 2024 and 19th March 2024 is rejected;
(b) The fourth respondent is directed to dispose of the claims of eligibility filed by some of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within four months from today, i.e on or before 12th October 2024;
(c) The third respondent is also directed to dispose of the appeals instituted by some of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within four months from today, i.e. on or before 12th October 2024;Page 22 of 23
13th June 2024 17-IA(L)-17726-2024.DOCX
(d) The amounts deposited by the seventh respondent must be disbursed to the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within ten days from today, i.e. on or before 24th June 2024, upon the petitioners complying with usual formalities;
(e) The Rule is disposed of in the above terms.
37. There shall be no orders as to costs.
38. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this judgment.
(Kamal Khata, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
Signed by: Darshan Patil
Page 23 of 23
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 13th June 2024
Date: 13/06/2024 15:37:23