VILAS RAMBHAU CHAUDHARI v. SLUM REHABILITATION AUTHORITY AND AND 6 ORS.
Slum Rehabilitation Scheme: SRA's Authority to Reconsider NOC and Process Subsequent Proposals After Addressing Concerns Regarding Initial Consents.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:1
Decision Date: 10-05-2025
List of Laws
Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971; Development Control Regulations, 1991; Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034; Circular No. 144; Circular No. 169
- Facts: A petitioner-developer challenged the Slum Rehabilitation Authority's (SRA) decision to entertain a second proposal from a rival developer (Respondent No. 5) for a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) while the petitioner's earlier proposal was pending. The petitioner argued that their proposal, submitted on August 1, 2018, had secured 56% consent from slum dwellers and obtained four NOCs. Respondent No. 5 submitted their proposal on September 12, 2018, which was initially rejected but later accepted after a re-election where slum dwellers voted in favor of Respondent No. 5.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner challenged an order by the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) that rejected their application, as well as the approval granted to Respondent No. 5 by the Executive Engineer (SRA-III). The writ petition was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the AGRC's order and seeking the processing of the petitioner's own proposal.
- Issue: The core issue is whether the SRA has the jurisdiction to entertain a second proposal from a developer for a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme while an earlier proposal from another developer is pending consideration. A related issue is determining the exact stage at which a proposal for implementing an SRS is considered "accepted," thus precluding the consideration of further proposals.
- Holding: The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no violation of the principle established in Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari because the SRA's Co-operative Department had reconsidered its initial NOC for the petitioner after complaints about the validity of the consents. The court found that the SRA's actions ensured a fair selection process for the developer.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that mere submission of a proposal does not mean it is scrutinized or accepted. Citing Circular No. 144, the court emphasized that a proposal is considered for further processing only after recommendations are received from various authorities on Annexures I to V. The court distinguished the case from Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari, stating that the SRA's Co-operative Department had conducted a general body meeting and reconsidered its NOC based on complaints, ensuring a fair selection process. The court found no "simultaneous processing" of proposals, as the Respondent No. 5's proposal was processed after the reconsideration of the petitioner's NOC. The court also rejected the argument that the initial rejection of Respondent No. 5's proposal attained finality, as the Head Clerk's role is merely ministerial in verifying the pendency of earlier proposals.
🔒 For Members Only