AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil B. Shukre, J
RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
We find that the impugned orders dated 23rd June 2023, which are at page nos.159, 160 and 161, have been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondent no.5, which appears to be in violation of Proviso to Section 13 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. In a similar case, i.e. Writ Petition (Lodging) No.14017 of 2022, Nipun Thakkar Vs. Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Anr., decided on 10th January 2023, a Coordinate Bench of this court has taken a view that no rejection of a scheme can proceed or appointment of another Developer or re-development by the SRA can proceed without compliance with the said proviso. Relevant observations are to be found in paragraph 5 of the order dated 10th January 2023. Similar violation has taken place in the present case.
Apart from what is stated above, the impugned order is required to be passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the SRA, but that does not seem to be the case here. In other words, the impugned order can be said to be an order which is passed without having any jurisdiction in the matter. Then, this is also not a case where there would be any absolute bar to the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. Rather, this case falls in the well-known exceptions carved out to this rule in plethora of judgments, one of them being the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998) 8 SCC 1.
In these circumstances, we find that the impugned orders cannot stand the scrutiny of law and need to be interfered with. The impugned orders dated 23 rd June 2023 passed by the Executive Engineer – H/E, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.2 for appropriate consideration and decision by following the applicable rules.
We make it clear here that we have made no observations on the merits of the matter.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.