Writ Petition No.3207 of 2008. Case: Om Shri Sai Developers Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority through the Chief Executive Officer, Shree Pandit Coop. Housing Society (Proposed) through the Administrator, Shree Siddhi Vinayak Construction Company through its partners and State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No.3207 of 2008 |
| Counsel | Rajani Iyer, S G Surana, Vibhav Krishna, Juris Consillis, V M Thorat, Tejas Dande, Vipin Kamdi, Havinder Toor, S B Pawar, S K Chari, R J Nirmal, S K Legal Associates, J G Reddy, V P Malvankar, R B Raghuwanshi |
| Judges | Swatanter Kumar, C.J. and A.P. Deshpande, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 |
| Citation | 2009 (1) BomCR 718, 2008 (110) BomLR 3063, 2008 (6) ALLMR 682 |
| Judgement Date | August 29, 2008 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
In this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of theConstitution of India, the petitioner has primarily amongst othersmade the following prayers:
(a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue aWrit of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature ofCertiorari or any other Writ, Order calling forthe records and proceedings relating to theproceedings and after perusing the legality,validity and propriety of the proceedingsand the order bearingNo.SRA/CEO/LA/HCO130/Pandit/61/08dated 4th March, 2008 passed by theRespondent No.1 herein, be pleased toquash and set aside and reverse the same.
(b) Pending the bearing and final disposal ofthis appeal, the impugned Order passed bythe Respondent No.1 bearing No.SRA/CEO/LA/HCO130/Pandit/61/08 dated4th March, 2008 be stayed.
(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to passa order of injunction restraining theRespondent No.3 from carrying out anyconstruction on suit land bearing C.T.S.No.6(pt), 7, 7/1 to 3,9,9/1 to 4 and 10 (pt)situated at L B S Road, Mulund West,Mumbai 400080 and/or to create any thirdparty rights on the suit land or changing thenature of suit property etc.
These prayers have been made on the averments of thepetitioner which is a firm engaged in construction business and wasappointed as the developer by respondent No.2 society videagreement dated 3rd March, 1996. The petitioner persuaded the slumdweller to join the scheme for which they consented and the societypassed resolution on 1st March, 1996 in its General Body Meeting forimplementation of Slum Redevelopment Scheme through thepetitioner. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority, hereinafter referred toas the `Authority', on 6th January, 1998 issued L.O.I., I.O.D. andCommencement Certificate upto the plinth level. The respondentsocietydid not cooperate and started making illegal demands andsome of the slum dwellers refused to shift which brought the schemeto stall. On 14th January, 1998, notice was issued by MumbaiMunicipal Corporation against the petitioner which was replied towherein all these facts were brought to the notice of the authority butin view of the false complaint lodged by respondent No.2, theauthority did not issue the commencement certificate for the furtherwork. On this basis, even on 24th March, 2000, a resolution waspassed by the Special General Body Meeting to remove thepetitioner. This resolution is stated to be fabricated and the petitionerfiled the suit before the Bombay City Civil Court being Suit No.2045 of2005. On 19th May, 2000, the respondent No.1Authoritydirected thepetitioner to start the work of rehabilitation building in three monthsand that further commencement certificate was ready and called uponhim to make the payment and collect the certificate. The petitionergave an undertaking to the said authority and upon payment ofrevalidation charges on 22nd...
To continue reading
Request your trial