[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Prem Siddha Co-Op. Housing Society, ... vs Chief Executive Officer, The Slum ... on 13 February, 2026
2026:BHC-OS:4219
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
Digitally
JYOTI
signed by
JYOTI
PRAKASH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PRAKASH PAWAR
PAWAR Date:
2026.02.13
17:30:12
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
+0530
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 31810 OF 2025
1. Prem Siddha Co-op Housing Society
through its Chief Promoter
Mr. Dasharath Rajaram Patil
Resident of Prem Nagar,
B.G. Kher Marg, Worli,
Mumbai - 400 018
2. Tulja Bhavani Housing
Development Pvt. Ltd.
Mehta House No. 4, Block No. 5,
Bhaijeevanji Lane,
Jagnnath Shankarsheth Road,
Mumbai - 400 002 ... Petitioners
V/s.
1. Chief Executive Officer,
The Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Having office at Administrative
Building, Slum Rehabilitation
Authority, Anant Kanekar Marg,
Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051
2. The Executive Engineer,
Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Having office at Administrative
Building, Slum Rehabilitation
Authority, Anant Kanekar Marg,
Bandra (East) Mumbai-400 051
Page 1 of 19
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:41:53 :::
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
3. Shivkripa Builders & Developers,
Through its Partners, A partnership
firm, having its office At 115, Bharat
Chambers, Baroda Street,
Mumbai-400009
4. Indira SRA Co-operative Housing
Society, through its Chairman, a
Society duly registered under the
Provisions of the Maharashtra Co-op.
Societies Act, 1956, and having its Office
at Prem Nagar & Siddharth Nagar,
B.G. Kher Marg, Dr. A.B.Road,
Worli Naka, Woli, Mumbai-400 018.
5. M/s. Om Omega Investment and Properties,
a Partnership Firm, Having office at
34-B, Jolly Maker Chamber II,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021.
6. Suraj M. Sawant
M/s. Setsquare Project Consultants,
1/308, Yogeshwar CHS, N.M. Joshi Marg,
Lower Parel (East), Mumbai-400 013. ... Respondents
_______________________________________
Mr. Samir Vaidya a/w Ms. Zainab Khan and Ms. Chandani Gore for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Ms Ravleen Sabharwal, Mr. Prakhar Tandon,
Ms. Aarushi Yadav and Mr. Aatish Tayade for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sanket Mone, Mr. Aditya
Page 2 of 19
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2026 22:41:53 :::
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
Shiralkar, Ms. Anchita Nair and Mr. Raghav Taneja i/b. Vidhii Partners for
Respondent No. 3.
Mr. Yash Sinha i/b. Mr. Tushar Goradia for Respondent No. 4
Mr. Arun Panickar for Respondent No. 5.
_______________________________________
CORAM : FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.
RESERVED ON : 2nd FEBRUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 13th FEBRUARY 2026
JUDGEMENT :
-
1. The present Writ Petition invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of
certiotari to quash and set aside the order dated 26 September 2025
(impugned order) passed under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum
Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (Slums Act)
wherein Respondent No.1 - Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation
Authority (CEO/SRA), dropped the suo motu proceedings initiated under
Section 13(2) of the Slums Act against the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SR
Scheme) being developed by Respondent No. 3.
2. The SR scheme pertains to more than 2270 slum dwellers and
its implementation is stated to have been inordinately delayed for nearly 26
years due to internal disputes between rival groups, resulting in the complete
stalling of the project.
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
BR IEF CH R ONOLOGY OF EV E NTS
3. In order to appreciate the issues that arise for consideration in
the present Writ Petition, it is necessary to consider, in brief, the factual
backdrop of the matter, as set out hereunder:
A] Petitioner No. 1 is a proposed society of slum
dwellers which is neither a registered co-operative society nor
recognized by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA). Peti-
tioner No. 2 is a private limited company appointed by Peti-
tioner No. 1 as its developer.
B] The subject land, admeasuring 42,995.22 square
metres and owned by the Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai (MCGM), comprises Cadastral Survey Nos. 20 (part),
32 (part), 33, 25, 41, 65 and 66 of the Worli Division and Plot
Nos. 88 to 104 of Scheme No. 58, Worli, Mumbai (said land).
The said land is stated to be inhabited by more than 2270 slum
dwellers.
C] A portion of the said land admeasuring about
12,500 sq.mtrs comprising of plot nos. 91 to 95 and 100 to 104
is stated to be the leasehold lands of Birla Group Industries
Charitable Trust.
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
D] Owing to the absence of basic civic amenities, the
slum dwellers formed a Co-Operative Housing Society, namely
Indira SRA Co-operative Housing Society being Respondent No.
4 herein (Indira Society), which is duly registered under the Ma-
harashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.
E] SRA issued a letter of intent dated 31 December
1999 (LOI), sanctioning the SR Scheme comprising Indira Soci-
ety in favour of Respondent No. 3. Accordingly, SRA recognized
Indira Society as the sole and exclusive society of the slum
dwellers on the said land.
F] Pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 25 June
2009 issued by the CEO/SRA to Respondent No.3, an order
dated 14 October 2009 came to be passed under Section 13(2)
of the Slums Act (Section 13(2) Order) purporting to terminate
the appointment of Respondent No.3 and appointing Respon-
dent No. 5 as the new developer for the SR Scheme.
G] After several intervening proceedings, Respondent
No. 3 filed an Appeal bearing No. 32 of 2011 challenging the
Section 13(2) Order before the High Powered Committee
(HPC).
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
H] The HPC dismissed Appeal No. 32 of 2011 vide or-
der dated 18 June 2012, which dismissal was challenged by Re-
spondent No. 3 before this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 1840 of
2012 which came to be allowed and the matter was remanded
back to the HPC.
of 2011 in favour of Respondent No. 3, setting aside the Section
13(2) Order dated 14 October 2009, on the ground that MCGM,
the owner of the said land, was not heard by the CEO/SRA
before passing the Section 13(2) Order.
J] The present Petitioners challenged the said order
dated 6 March 2014 passed by the HPC in this Court by filing
Writ Petition (L) No. 3016 of 2014.
K] Independently, a faction of slum dwellers claiming
to represent Indira Society also challenged the said order dated
6 March 2014 passed by the HPC in Writ Petition No. 1205 of
2015. In addition, Respondent No. 5 also challenged the said
order dated 6 March 2014 passed by the HPC in Writ Petition
No. 923 of 2015 in this Court.
L] All three Writ Petitions were heard and disposed of
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
by a common order dated 20 October 2021 that came to be
passed by the Division Bench of this Court (Division Bench
Order) which directed the HPC viz. now the Apex Grievance
Redressal Committee (AGRC) to decide Appeal No. 32 of 2011
on merits and for this purpose, remanded the matter back to
AGRC. However, the Division Bench Order expressly held that
the Petitioners herein had no legal standing or locus standi to
interfere in the SR scheme.
M] The Petitioners herein challenged the Division
Bench Order dated 20 October 2021 before the Supreme Court
in SLP (Civil) No. 5103-5109 of 2022, which came to be
dismissed vide order dated 1 April 2022.
N] The Petitioners herein have also filed Review
Petition before the Division Bench of this Court seeking review
of the Division Bench Order dated 20 October, 2021.
O] On remand, the AGRC passed an order dated 18
July 2022 and allowed Appeal No. 32 of 2011 on merits and set
aside the Section 13(2) Order (AGRC Order). In the AGRC
Order, a conclusive finding has been recorded that Respondent
No. 3 was not responsible for any delay in the implementation of
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
the SR Scheme. Additionally, the AGRC Order also records a
finding, similar to the one recorded in the Division Bench Order
that the Petitioners herein had no locus standi to interfere in the
SR scheme.
P] In August 2022, the Petitioners herein filed Writ
Petition No. 1706 of 2024 challenging the AGRC Order in this
Court which Writ Petition remains pending till today.
Q] In June 2025, the CEO/SRA had initiated suo motu
proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act against
Respondent No. 3. These suo motu proceedings came to be
concluded by an order dated 26 September 2025 (impugned
order) which inter alia held that there had been no delay in the
implementation of the SR Scheme on the part of Respondent No.
3. Instead, it was held that the SR Scheme was delayed on
account of inter-sé disputes between Respondent No. 4 and
attempts of a rival developer to stall the project.
4. In these circumstances, the present Writ Petition has been filed
by the Petitioners herein who seek to challenge the impugned order which
inter alia dropped the suo motu proceedings initiated under Section 13(2) of
the Slums Act against Respondent No. 3.
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
S UBM ISS IO NS OF T HE P ET IT IO NER
5. Mr. Vaidya, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioners submits that the impugned order came to be passed by the
CEO/SRA without issuance of any notice, either to the Petitioners or to Birla
Group Industries Charitable Trust. He vehemently contends that such failure
to afford an opportunity of hearing vitiates the impugned order, rendering it
unsustainable in law, as being in breach of the principles of natural justice
and, consequently, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. He further invites the attention of this Court to the observations
contained in the impugned order, wherein the CEO/SRA has recorded that
the LOI did not survive in view of the order dated 14 October 2013 passed by
the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1762 of 2006. He argues
that, having so held, the initiation of suo motu proceedings and the passing
of the impugned order were wholly impermissible in law and liable to be set
aside.
7. On the Division Bench order dated 20 October 2021, Mr. Vaidya
submits that since his clients have preferred Review Petition (L) No. 15236 of
2022 against the said order which is still pending consideration before the
Division Bench, this Court ought not to be influenced by the Division Bench
order. He therefore submits that this Court ought to interfere in the matter
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
and grant urgent reliefs.
8. Per contra, Mr. Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel who appears
on behalf of Respondent No. 3 has vehemently opposed the present Writ
Petition. At the outset, he submits that ex-facie the same is not maintainable.
He is at pains to point out that the Division Bench Order has conclusively
held that the Petitioners lack locus standi to file and maintain any
proceedings in respect of the SR scheme and they do not possess any legal
standing to interfere with its implementation or otherwise.
9. Mr. Tulzapurkar submits that a judgment continues to be binding
and operative, notwithstanding the pendency of review proceedings that may
have been preferred against it unless and until, it is reviewed or set aside. In
support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme
Court in Union Territory of Ladakh and others V/s. Jammu and Kashmir
National Conference1 and Reliance Industries Limited V/s. Vijayan A 2. He
therefore submits that the present Writ Petition ought to be dismissed at the
very threshold itself as not being maintainable at the hands of the Petitioners
herein.
1 (2024) 18 SCC 643
2 Order dated 7 November 2022 passed by the Supreme Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 570 of 2022 in
Criminal Appeal No. 1167 of 2022
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
S UBM ISS IO NS OF R ES P ONDE NT NOS . 1 & 2
10. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Counsel who appears on behalf of
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 supports the submissions made by Mr. Tulzapurkar.
In addition, he submits that the CEO/SRA was justified in not issuing any
notice to the Petitioners in respect of the suo motu proceedings initiated
under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act since such an enquiry is confined only
to the slum society recognised by the SRA and the developer appointed
pursuant to the letter of intent issued by the CEO/SRA. In the present case,
he submits, Respondent No. 4 has been recognised as the slum society by the
SRA and, therefore, there was neither any legal requirement nor occasion to
issue notice of the said proceedings to the Petitioners.
11. As regards the challenge to the jurisdiction and authority of the
CEO/SRA to initiate suo motu proceedings, Mr. Khandeparkar submits that
the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Slums Act empowers the CEO/SRA to
initiate suo motu proceedings inter alia on account of any delay in the
implementation of the SR scheme approved and sanctioned by the SRA. In
the present case, he states, as CEO/SRA initially felt that there was such
delay which needed to be explained, the said notice came to be issued to the
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in order to ascertain the factual position regarding
the progress of the SR scheme.
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
12. Mr. Khandeparkar further submits that, upon consideration of
the material placed on record by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 during the hearing
of the suo motu proceedings, the CEO/SRA has recorded a finding that
Respondent No. 3 was not responsible for the delay in implementation of the
SR Scheme and the delay was attributable primarily due to inter-sé disputes
between Respondent No. 4 and attempts of a rival developer to stall the
project. Consequently, the impugned order came to be passed wherein, the
CEO/SRA dropped the said proceedings initiated under Section 13(2) of the
Slums Act. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order does not suffer
from any infirmity and merit any challenge. He therefore seeks dismissal of
the present Writ Petition.
RE AS ONS , ANALYS IS & F IN DIN GS
13. I have considered the submissions advanced by the parties. I
have also perused the record with their assistance. The issue of
maintainability of present Writ Petition is required to be considered at the
threshold. On this issue, I find merit in the submissions advanced by the
Respondents. In my considered opinion, the Division Bench Order has
conclusively adjudicated upon and determined that the Petitioners, being
merely a proposed society without registration under the Maharashtra Co-
operative Societies Act, 1960, do not possess the requisite locus standi to
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
interfere with the implementation of the SR scheme. For the sake of
convenience, the relevant paras of the said Division Bench are reproduced
hereunder -
"53. In so far the two writ petitions filed by Prem Siddha are
concerned, i.e., Writ Petition No.2421 of 2016 and Writ Petition No.396 of
2020, we are of the view that we should not entertain the said two writ
petitions as Prem Siddha itself has declared that it is a proposed society
and not yet registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960.
54. In both the writ petitions, Prem Siddha is accompanied by
Tuljabhavani Housing Development Private Limited as the co-petitioner,
stating that Tuljabhavani is a private limited company incorporated under
the Companies Act, 1956 and the developer of Prem Siddha. In so far
Prem Siddha is concerned, it is stated that it is the proposed slum society
and is represented by its Chief Promoter - Dashrath Rajaram Patil. Who is
Dashrath Rajaram Patil and how is he connected to the slum area or the
scheme have not been disclosed. Prem Siddha in fact has not disclosed
who are its members and as to whether it has sought for registration from
the competent authority under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act,
1960. It has also not pleaded that it has the support of 70% of the eligible
slum-dwellers.
55. In Nirbhay Co-operative Housing Society Limited (supra), a Division
Bench of this Court had taken the view that once SRA recognizes a society
as the society for the purpose of development of the scheme, in the
absence of the said society having any right or recognition, it would not
be possible to entertain the writ petition at the instance of the proposed
society unless the recognized society is derecognized by SRA. This
position has been reiterated in Gulam Hyder (supra) holding that once a
society is registered, it will not be open for another proposed society to
move the Court until the registration of the other society is cancelled by
the competent authority. Supreme Court while disposing of S.L.P. (C)
No.14784 / 2011, Ekta (Estate) Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha Vs.
MCGM, decided on 19.05.2011, had looked into the provisions of
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, more particularly section
36 thereof, and held that a society can sue after its registration. It was
further held that if a society is a registered society, it can maintain a writ
petition.
56. In Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari Vs. Chief Executive Officer, (2006) 4
Mh.L.J. 282, a Division Bench of this Court considered DCR 33(10) of the
Development Control Regulations of Greater Mumbai, 1991 and held that
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
if 70% of the slum-dwellers on a particular area come together and apply
after formation of proposed co-operative housing society, the said
application has to be independently considered in accordance with law.
The scheme does not contemplate simultaneous consideration of such an
application made by a proposed society with an application subsequently
made by another proposed society relating to the same land. The
applicant society has to have 70% support which obviously two societies
cannot have. The application received first is to be processed first
independently. If it fails to get 70% support, the second application can be
considered. The obvious intention is to avoid unhealthy competition
between different builders who are interested in supporting such societies.
It was held as follows:-
'20. If the entire scheme under Regulation 33(10) is perused it is
obvious that if 70% of the slum dwellers on a particular area
come together and apply after formation of proposed cooperative
housing society, the said application has to be independently
considered in accordance with law. The scheme does not
contemplate simultaneous consideration of such an application
made by a proposed society with an Application subsequently
made by another proposed society relating to same land. The
Applicant-society has to have 70% support which obviously two
societies cannot have. The Application received first is to be
processed first independently. If it fails to get 70% support,
Second Application can be examined. The obvious intention is to
avoid unhealthy competition between the different builders who
are interested in supporting such societies. If such a course of
simultaneous consideration is permitted to be adopted,
unscrupulous persons and builders will try to win over the
hutment dwellers who have supported the application made
earlier by another society. Therefore, it is not desirable that an
application which is earlier made and the one which is
subsequently filed should be considered together. That is not the
scheme provided under D.C. Regulation 33(10). It is necessary
that the application which is first received in respect of a
particular property by the SRA should be processed and decided
first. After decision of the first Application, the second
Application made by another society can be considered
depending on the result of the first Application. The reason is
that none of the societies have any right, title and interest in
respect of the property. Such a course will prevents the unhealthy
competition between the builders or between the leaders of two
groups in a slum area.'
57. In the light of the above, we are not inclined to entertain the above
two writ petitions filed by Prem Siddha. Those are accordingly
dismissed."
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
14. A perusal of the Division Bench Order makes it evident and
leaves no doubt that the Petitioners lack the requisite locus standi to
maintain the present Writ Petition, in which they seek to challenge the very
same SR scheme that was the subject matter of challenge before it. There are
no changed circumstances pointed out to me by Mr. Vaidya who is unable to
distinguish the Division Bench Order and/or satisfy me as to why the same
does not apply to his clients today and/or how the present Writ Petition is
maintainable at their hands save and except for pointing out that a Review
Petition has been filed against such order and hence, the same ought not to
be relied upon.
15. In Nirbhay Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Anr. v. Slum
Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.3 that has also been relied upon in the
Division Bench Order extracted above, it has decisively been that in the
context of a slum rehabilitation scheme, once a co-operative society is duly
registered, no other proposed society purporting to represent a section of the
members can claim any right of representation in respect of the scheme,
unless and until the registered society is de-registered in accordance with the
provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. In the
present case, even today, Petitioner No. 1 is admittedly only a proposed
society and does not enjoy the status of a registered co-operative society.
3 Order dated 17 June 2004 passed by the Bombay High Court in WP (L) 1112 of 2004
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
Consequently, it cannot purport to represent the members or any section
thereof in respect of the SR Scheme. Thus, as held in the Division Bench
Order, it lacks locus standi to challenge any steps/orders passed in relation to
the SR Scheme.
16. The next point that arises for my consideration is whether the
CEO/SRA possessed the jurisdiction and authority to initiate suo motu
proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act. In order to do that, it
would be advantageous to reproduce the contents of the said section, which
is hereunder :
"13(2) Where on declaration of any land as Slum Rehabilitation Area, the
Chief Executive Officer is satisfied that, the land in the Slum Rehabilitation Area
has been or is being developed by the owners, landholders or occupants or
developers in contravention of the plans duly approved, or any restrictions or
conditions imposed under sub-section (10) of Section 12, or in contravention of any
provision of any Slum Rehabilitation Scheme or any condition specified in the
approval or has not been developed within the time, as specified under such
conditions of approval, he may, by order, determine to develop the land declared as
Slum Rehabilitation Area by entrusting it to any agency or the other developer
recognized by him for the purpose."
17. A plain reading of this provision reveals that the CEO/SRA is
empowered to take appropriate action, inter alia, in cases where there is
delay in the implementation of a SR scheme approved and sanctioned by the
SRA. In the present case, notice under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act was
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
issued for ascertaining (the reasons for) the delay in implementation of the
SR Scheme registered with the SRA. The initiation of such proceedings was
therefore, well within the statutory competence of the CEO/SRA. As a result,
the submission advanced by Mr. Vaidya on behalf of the Petitioners that the
suo motu proceedings initiated by the CEO/SRA were without authority of
law cannot be accepted. At the stage of initiation of the said suo motu
proceedings, notice was issued to Respondent No. 4, being the society
recognized and registered with the SRA and to Respondent No. 3, being the
developer appointed in respect of the SR Scheme. The Petitioners are neither
a registered society nor recognised by the SRA in respect of the SR Scheme.
Thus, in the absence of any legal standing in relation to the SR Scheme, I am
of the view that no obligation arose to issue notice to the Petitioners under
Section 13(2) of the Slums Act.
18. Moreover, it is rather strange that the Petitioners are aggrieved
by the impugned order which concludes and terminates the suo motu
proceedings initiated by the CEO/SRA when, [in Ground (e) in the present
Writ Petition] they have themselves sought to challenge his jurisdiction and
authority to initiate such proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Slums Act
in the first place. Hence, the Petitioners cannot claim to be aggrieved and/or
prejudiced by the impugned order.
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
19. Lastly, the submission made by Mr. Vaidya that the Division
Bench Order ought not to be followed on account of the pendency of a
Review Petition challenging the said order cannot be accepted. It is a settled
position in law that a judgment or order continues to be binding and
operative even during the pendency of review proceedings, unless it is
stayed, reviewed, or set aside by a competent court. In Jammu and Kashmir
National Conference (supra), the Supreme Court has categorically held that
the mere pendency of a Review Petition does not dilute the binding effect of
the judgment under review. Further, in Reliance Industries Limited (supra),
the Supreme Court has further clarified that the pendency of a stay
application in a Review Petition cannot, by itself, furnish a ground, either to
grant a stay or to decline compliance with directions issued by the court and
in the absence of any express order staying the operation of the judgment,
the same continues to bind all concerned. In view thereof, the submission
advanced by Mr. Vaidya is rejected.
20. For all the aforesaid reasons, I am satisfied that the present Writ
Petition is devoid of merits and constitutes a clear obstruction to the
implementation of the SR Scheme which is a duly sanctioned scheme
intended to benefit approximately 2270 slum dwellers. Entertaining frivolous
Petitions of this nature, repeatedly instituted over extended periods by a rival
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
WP(L)/31810/2025
Prem Siddha CHS Vs. CEO (SRA)
group lacking locus standi, has serious consequences and directly prejudices
the beneficiaries for whose benefit such schemes are formulated. The present
Writ Petition also does not raise any substantial question of law warranting
interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present Writ
Petition therefore, fails and is liable to be dismissed.
21. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
:: ORDER ::
(a) The present Writ Petition is hereby dismissed.
(b) There shall be no order as to costs.
(FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.)
22. After the judgment was pronounced, Ms. Zainab Khan, learned
Counsel who appears on behalf of the Petitioner seeks a stay of this order.
Considering the findings recorded in this order, request is rejected.
(FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.)
Ajay Jadhav
WP(L)/31810/2025
-------------------------------------
Order dated 13th February 2026
