Bombay High Court
Shri Siddhivinayak Chs vs State Of Maharasthra Through Principal ... on 14 August, 2025
Author: Revati Mohite Dere
Bench: Revati Mohite Dere
2025:BHC-OS:13450-DB
901-wpl-23609-2024.doc
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.23609 OF 2024
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.38131 OF 2024
1. Shri Siddhivinayak CHS (Prop)
Through its Cheif Promotor,
Haivng it's Address:
Jaku Club, Prabhat Colony Road No.9,
Santacruz East, Mumbai - 400 055.
2. M/s. Arihant Construction Company,
Through its Partners,
6, Jeena House, Om Nagar,
Off Marol Pipe Line Road,
Andheri - East, Mumbai - 400 099. ..Petitioners/Applicants
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Housing Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.
2. Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Through its Chief Executive Officer
Having its office at Administrative
Building, Anant Kanekar Marg,
Banrdra (E), Mumbai - 400 051.
3. The Deputy Collector (Special Cell),
Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Administrative Builiding,
Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (E),
Mumbai - 400 051. .....Respondents
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar with Mr. Abhijit Patil, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Suraj Gupte, AGP for the Respondent No.1-State.
Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal, i/b. R. S. Justicia Law Chambers, for the
Respondent Nos.2 & 3.
Gaikwad RD 1/13
901-wpl-23609-2024.doc
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE &
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 11th AUGUST 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON: 14th AUGUST 2025.
JUDGMENT :
- (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.)
1. The facts in the present matter reveal an unfortunate set of
events, whereby despite orders of this Court attaining finality and
further confirmed by the Apex Court, the Respondent No.2-Slum
Rehabilitation Authority ('SRA') indicates its helplessness in
implementing the said orders. At the outset, we are informed by the
learned counsel for the SRA that its officers have made several
representations and requests to the law enforcement agencies of the
State of Maharashtra to provide assistance in enforcing the orders of
this Court, but dehors any such assistance forthcoming, the authority
is rendered powerless to act in aid of the orders of this Court. We are
greatly perturbed to be told that the occupants of the area have
mounted a resistance against demolition of the structures on the said
properties despite clear orders of this Court and have persistently
issued threats and employed intimidation tactics against the officers of
the authority and have thereby successfully thwarted the
implementation of the orders of this Court. This is wholly
unacceptable and the rule of law must prevail. In a country governed
901-wpl-23609-2024.doc
by rule of law, it is the onerous duty of the Courts to deal with such
elements with an iron hand so that the faith of the people in the
judicial system is maintained. Any defiance to the rule of law must be
dealt with sternly and strictly and it is to uphold the rule of law that
we are constrained to pass the present order.
2. The Petitioners essentially seek a direction to the
Respondent No.2-SRA to implement its own order dated 16 th February
2024 and notice dated 19 th March 2024 passed under Sections 33 and
38 of the Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and
Redevelopment) Act, 1971 ('the Slum Act'). The Petitioner also seeks
direction to initiate eviction proceedings against the non co-operative
slum dwellers and direct necessary action against the officers of the
SRA, who have failed to perform their duty to implement the orders
of the authority itself.
3. The case has a chequered history. The Petitioner No.1 is a
proposed co-operative housing society formed by the slum dwellers
residing on the said property at Final Plot Nos.39, 40, 41, 42, 71, 72
and 73 of the TPS, Santacruz No.5 along with 18.30 mtrs. wide D. P.
Road of village Bandra, Mumbai. The Petitioner No.2 is a Developer
901-wpl-23609-2024.doc
and owns three out of seven plots and is appointed by the Petitioner
No.1 to implement the SRA Scheme on the subject plot to be
implemented on all the seven plots together. The Respondent No.1 is
the State of Maharashtra; the Respondent No.3 is the Deputy
Collector (Special Cell) of the Respondent No.2-SRA.
4. On 15th October 1977, the subject property was declared
as 'Slum' under the Act and was notified as such by notification dated
27th October 1977.
5. The Petitioner No.2 was appointed as a Developer by the
Petitioner Society and a Development Agreement was executed.
Annexure-II was certified by the SRA and a Letter of Intent was also
issued. Commencement Certificate was issued on 23 rd September
2021. There were a series of proceedings whereby some of the slum
dwellers attempted to delay the eviction and vacation of the structures
despite the rent being deposited by the Petitioner No.2 with the SRA
as per Rules. A petition was filed by several slum dwellers bearing
Writ Petition (Stamp) No.10849 of 2024 against the State, its
authorities and the Petitioner No.2 herein challenging orders dated
16th February 2024 and 19 th March 2024. By judgment and order
901-wpl-23609-2024.doc
dated 13th June 2024, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the
petition and directed the Deputy Collector to dispose of the claims of
eligibility filed by some of the slum dwellers within four months from
the date of that order. While dismissing the petition, certain
observations were made by this Court, which are reproduced as
under:
"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 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.
901-wpl-23609-2024.doc
xxxxx
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 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.
xxxxx
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 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.
901-wpl-23609-2024.doc
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.
xxxxx
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
901-wpl-23609-2024.doc
is always in aid of final relief. Since there is no challenge to
the LOI in this petition, there is no question of 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."
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order, an
application was filed in a similar writ petition seeking recall of order
dated 13th June 2024 contending that certain observations in
paragraph 30 of the said judgment and order were incorrect. By order
dated 29th August 2024, the said co-ordinate Bench considered the
rival contentions of the parties and dismissed the application with
costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the Maharashtra Legal Services
Authority. We are constrained to reproduce some of the observations
made in the said order, which indicate the distress of the co-ordinate
Bench. Paragraph Nos.17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 read as
under:
"17. This petition was disposed of by a detailed order
dated 13 June 2024. Now, recall is sought of this order
soon after the receipt of notice dated 12 August 2024
fixing the demolition drives on 29 August 2024 and 30
August 2024.
18. Again, this matter was mentioned in the morning
session. Considering the demolition drive scheduled to
begin today, we had to take up this matter at 1.00 p.m.,
901-wpl-23609-2024.doc
leaving aside other matters on the cause list.
19. Thus, this pattern is adopted each time the
demolition drive is scheduled in an attempt to either stall
or derail it. Even contentions that were earlier rejected are
sought to be pressed again, trying to offer some new
packaging. Based on such applications and urgent
circulations, demolition drives that require substantial
logistics are thwarted. Since we are invariably told that
demolitions are about to commence, we grant urgent
circulation and take up the matters. Animated arguments
are then advanced in loud tones as if that would intimidate
the Court in granting some unwarranted protection. This
has now. unfortunately, become a pattern, if not a modus
operandi.
20. This Interim Application is nothing but an attempt in
the same direction. Accordingly, we observe that the
institution of this Interim Application constitutes an abuse
of the judicial process. No grounds warranting the recall
were made out. The entire attempt was to disrupt the
demolition drive by simply filing such an application and
securing an urgent hearing. We dismiss this Interim
Application with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-, payable to the
Maharashtra Legal Services Authority in two weeks.
21. After we finished the dictation of this order at 1.34
pm, Mr Kurle, in highly agitated and almost intimidating
tones, invited our attention to page 55 of the paper book.
On page 55 is his own notice addressed to certain
901-wpl-23609-2024.doc
addressees, including the senior police inspector. Even
though we read this notice, he insisted upon reading it in a
loud tone in this Court. Based on this reading. Mr Kurle, in
quite rude and agitated tones, submitted that the
Petitioners were interested in complying with the law. Still,
the authorities and all others were not so interested.
22. Based on this submission, we see no grounds for
recalling or changing the order we had just finished
dictating.
23. We also deem it our duty to clarify that arguments in
such intimidating tones do not affect a Court of law. The
thought of issuing a contempt notice did cross our minds.
But then, despite the best efforts of the learned Counsel to
provoke us, there was no point in being provoked.
Therefore, we have resisted issuing any contempt notice.
But we could not resist recording what transpired before
us.
24. This application is dismissed with costs of Rs 10,000/-
payable to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority in two
weeks."
7. The matter then traveled to the Apex Court. By order
dated 6th September 2024, the Apex Court clearly held that no case
for interference is made out and dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
In the said SLP was assailed the judgment and order dated 29 th August
2024. Even after the dismissal of the SLP, the subject plot was not
901-wpl-23609-2024.doc
handed over to the Developer by the SRA on the pretext that the SRA
officials were being threatened by some of the slum dwellers and were
resisting eviction. It is at this stage that the present petition has come
before us.
8. Heard Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the
Petitioners, Mr. Suraj Gupte, learned AGP representing the State and
Ms. Ravleen Sabarwal learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
Nos.2 and 3.
9. Mr. Khandeparkar has brought to our notice all the
previous orders of this Court as well as the Apex Court. He submits
that despite the dismissal of all the writ petitions filed by sets of slum
dwellers turn by turn, by this Court as well as the Apex Court, the
SRA has been unable to evict several slum dwellers, who have refused
to vacate the structures. Admittedly, the Developer has deposited the
two years' rent with the SRA for all the slum dwellers, as per
applicable Rules and has no objection, if the slum dwellers withdraw
the said amount. Out of 362 total slum dwellers in the scheme out of
which 271 are declared eligible and 152 have vacated the premises by
accepting rent a year ago. The Developer continues to incur expenses
901-wpl-23609-2024.doc
to the tune of Rs.17,000/- per slum dweller per month amounting to
approximately Rs.2,95,00,000/- per annum. The Developer has so far
deposited rent of Rs.6,50,00,000/- to the slum dwellers and yet the
site is not cleared and the work is yet to commence, due to the
handful of non co-operative slum dwellers and inaction on the part of
the authority. This in turn is causing continuous inequity to even the
slum dwellers, who have vacated the premises. It is clear that the
Developer is facing continuous financial damages on one hand and on
the other, a handful of non co-operative slum dwellers are prolonging
the development of the subject property despite orders passed by this
Court and confirmed by the Apex Court.
10. On the aforesaid backdrop, the authority cannot be
permitted to put up its hands in vain and claim helplessness in
implementing its own orders, affirmed by this Court and confirmed by
the Apex Court. This is nothing but obstruction in the administration
of justice, which cannot be countenanced.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts, we direct the police officials
of the Vakola Police Station to render all necessary assistance to the
SRA officials to implement the orders of this Court and ensure that
901-wpl-23609-2024.doc
the subject property is vacated within a period of two weeks from the
date of uploading of this order. Mr. Khandeparkar, on instructions,
states that the costs, if any, for providing police assistance shall be
borne by the Developer. The SRA officials shall ensure that the non
co-operative slum dwellers or any person/persons creating obstruction,
are dealt with in accordance with law. Any attempt to interfere with
the implement of this order will be seen as interference with the
administration of justice and will be dealt with accordingly.
12. A copy of this order be placed before the Commissioner of
Police, Mumbai to enable him to issue appropriate directions and take
appropriate steps to implement an order.
13. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
14. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, nothing survives in the
Interim Application therein and the same shall also stand disposed of.
15. List the Petition for recording compliance on 2nd
September 2025.
16. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
Signed by: Raju D. Gaikwad
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 14/08/2025 20:08:48
