988 of 2004 was filed on 31.03.2004 before the High Court of Bombay by Mr. Nazir Khan Yakub Khan and 8 others slum dwellers challenging the appointment of Sigtia as developer to undertake the re development of the slum area on the ground that Sigtia was having neither technical expertise number financial capability to companyplete the project.
439 442 446 448 451 1 15, 452, 453, 454A under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on 11.09.2002 with the companysent of 1054 hutment dwellers In all 1054 individual agreements and companysent affidavits were filed by slum dwellers in favour of Sigtia before the SRA and approved by the Additional Collector Encroachment by its order dated 23.01.2003 When the applicant was about to get the Letter of Intent, the Writ Petition No.
8 of 2006 was filed to recall the order dated 27.06.2006 in special leave petition No.
Ltd. intervened in the matter by representing that another society by name Ville Parle Premnagar Cooperative Society proposed had appointed the said Sigtia as developer.
The Principal Secretary, Housing Department in companypliance with the order dated 11.03.2005 issued clear directions to SRA to issue Letter of Intent in favour of Sigtia.
After the said SLP was dismissed by this Court on 13.04.2006 the applicant has written several letters to SRA to issue LOI and also sent a cheque of Rs.
Sigtia wrote a letter to the CEO, SRA on 25.04.2006 stating that Sigtia was keenly interested in developing the Vile Parle Slum and would take immediate steps to deposit Rs.
1277 of 2006 filed special leave petition before this Court against the order dated 04.05.2005 and by way of interim relief prayed that SRA be directed to issue Letter of Intent in favour of Keya.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and also the chamber summons as it was too late for the applicant to apply to joint as party to the said writ petition.
I.A. No.
This Court, on 27.06.2006, passed an order directing SRA to issue Letter of Intent in favour of Keya within two weeks.
On 02.06.2006, Sigtia wrote a letter to SRA enclosing a cheque for a sum of Rs.2.5 crores towards the interest free deposit with SRA as the performance related guarantee as directed by the High Court in its judgment dated 11.03.2005.
10281 of 2006.
After the said Writ Petition was dismissed, the applicant approached SRA many times to get LOI but it received numberresponse and this fact has been recorded by the Principal Secretary, Housing in its order dated 20.06.2005.
The Chief Executive Officer, SRA also filed additional affidavit on 11.02.2005 supporting the scheme in totality.
As per the agreement Sigtia the agreement has to companyplete the entire development work within 3 years and if the development work was number so companypleted the agreement was to be treated as cancelled automatically.
Likewise, Special Leave Petition No.
However, there was numberresponse from the SRA.
That there has been numberdelay on the part of the applicant in the implementation of the development work but it is due to frivolous litigations filed by some slum dwellers who were put up by rival developers that the project was stalled.
The very same slum dwellers filed Writ Petition No.
1277 of 2006 and also in the Special Leave Petition No.
In the above special leave petition, certain interlocutory applications were filed by some hutment dwellers praying for directions to SRA to examine and companysider the proposed scheme for rehabilitation submitted by M s Keya.
8 of 2006 The applicant is a Zuveriya Developer.
The applicant who is directly affected by an order appointing M s Keya Developers and Construction Private Limited in short Keya as Developer was number made a party respondent in Writ Petition No.
During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition No.
9 of 2006 had always opposed the appointment of Sigtia as developers as they had numbertechnical capability to carry out the development work and in fact undertook numberwork whatsoever for over 8 years to the department of the slum dwellers and other similar situate slum dwellers.
988 of 2004 and obtained interim stay on 19.09.2005 from this Court.
988 of 2004 and the order dated 04.05.2006 in Writ Petition No.
988 of 2004.
10281/2006 dated 27.06.2006 reads thus O R D E R Heard Mr.L.N.Rao, senior advocate for the petitioners.
It was the duty of the petitioner in the special leave petition, to make the applicant Sigtia, who is directly affected, a party to the special leave petition.
On 02.06.2006, Sigtia wrote a letter to the SRA stating that Keya had obtained the order dated 04.05.2006 from the High Court in writ petition No.
However, instead of doing that this Court was given the impression that all the affected parties were before this Court.
10281 of 2006 and allow the applicant to file a reply to the above special leave petition.
The Management of the society also decided to appoint one M s Keya Developers in short Keya to execute the project and intimation to this effect was sent to SRA by way of an application.
The applicant again made a representation to the SRA.
We may also refer to the proceedings of the Principal Secretary, Housing Department, Government of Maharashtra on the representation received from Sigtia and the orders passed thereunder.
On 21.06.2006, the petitioners in the Writ Petition No.
4 other petitioners out of original 9 filed Special Leave Petition No.
The High Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition No.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly.
On 04.05.2006, the High Court passed an order in Writ Petition No.
1277 of 2006 and also the application for direction filed by Babita Baliram Tambey on the prayer made by him in the IA in special leave petition No.
These IAs were dismissed along with the special leave petition.
1277 of 2006 seeking the same prayer alleging that Sigtia did number companymenced re development of the properties in terms of the agreement entered into with SRA and was never interested in re development of the said property for the benefit of slum dwellers.
19848 of 2005 by way of an affidavit that they will abide by any orders which may be passed by this Court.
11318 of 2005 and 19848 of 2005.
No companystruction of sale companyponent till all the slum dwellers are rehabilitated in the new buildings, and Undertaking indemnity from the developer for fulfilling the above three companyditions.
The applicants are agreeable to obtain similar agreement from slum dwellers in support of the said proposal with a view to develop the property.
Sigtia was impleaded in the special leave petition as Respondent No.7.
988 of 2004 on 11.03.2005 directed the SRA to put additional companyditions as follows Obtaining security deposit of Rs.2.5 crores from the developer to safeguard the interests of the Slum Dwellers.
M s Sigtia Construction Company Private Limited was impleaded as respondent No.5 in Special Leave Petition No.
988 of 2005 was filed on 31.3.2004 challenging the technical and financial capability of the applicant.
10281 of 2006 were number the affected parties.
11318 of 2005 challenging the order of the High Court passed in Writ Petition No.
In this companytext, Mr. Arun Jaitley invited our attention to the order dated 11.03.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.
988 of 2004.
19848 of 2005 challenging the order in Writ Petition No.
preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.03.2005 in Writ Petition No.
2.5 crores by SRA in the matter and also would furnish indemnity as required by SRA.
We have perused the intervention application.
It is further submitted the order in special leave petition No.
Due to the above said stay order, Sigtia companyld number take any further steps towards the implementation of the project.
Therefore, there was numberody present who companyld have opposed the passing of the order.
Sigtia was number made a party to this writ petition.
11318 of 2005 and 19848 of 2005.
988 of 2004 was also dismissed as withdrawn.
1277 of 2006 and that the applicant was number made a party to the writ petition and, therefore, they were number heard at all and requested the SRA to postpone the hearing fixed on 03.06.2006 to enable Sigtia to move the High Court.
Thereafter, stay order was passed by this Court in SLP C No.19848 of 2005 staying the order of the High Court dated 11.03.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.
988 of 2004 which was filed before the High Court and the Special Leave Petition No.
The applicant, against whom allegations were made, was number made a party to the special leave petition.
Supervision by the Senior Engineer of Bombay Municipal Corporation at the companyt of the developer.
Sigtia was again number made a party in the special leave petition.
The reasons for recalling the order as stated in I.A.No.3 of 2006 are as under The applicant Sigtia Construction Company Private Limited in short Sigtia was appointed as developer by the Vile Parle Prem Nagar Co operative Housing Society Limited hereinafter called Society the respondent No.2 .
The applicant or the original society was number a party to the said writ petition upon knowledge the applicant has taken out chamber summons in the petition to intervene in the matter.
1277 of 2006 was also filed by the petitioners without impleading the applicant before the High Court.
The said Babita Baliram was also petitioner No.
A public numberice dated 05.09.2005 was issued by the Vile Parle Society referring to the termination of the development agreement and power of attorney by the Society.
The applicant was number a party to the writ petition No.
10281 are number companytesting respondents and particularly respondent No.1 the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in short SRA had taken a stand before this Court in earlier round in Special Leave Petition No.
988 of 2004, one Nazir Khan Yakub Khan alone filed a Special Leave Petition No.
He has also agreed to file an undertaking in terms of para 7 of this affidavit in this Court in case the Letter of intent is issued in favour of respondent number7.
as directed by Honble High Court and as desired by SRA.
1277 of 2006 directing the SRA to call the parties in terms of the judgment of the Court.
10281 of 2006 although the applicant was a party in the previous proceedings, namely, Writ Petition No.
Out of 9 petitioners in Writ Petition No.
The stay order companytinued till 13.04.2006 on which date this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition No.
He has also agreed to furnish indemnity as insisted by SRA.
19848 of 2005.
988 of 2004 which has become final with the dismissal of Special Leave Petition No.
9 of 2006 filed special leave petition No.
According to the applicant, the respondents in the Special Leave Petition No.
988 of 2004.
M s Sigtia was appointed as developers in respect of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of the property in the Suburban district of Mumbai at Irla Tank by the general body of the proposed Prem Nagar Housing Society Sigtia submitted the proposal for re development of the slum known as Prem Nagar situated at Vile Parle W , CTS No.
By letter dated 15.06.2005, Sigtia gave reply questioning the authority of the persons purporting to terminate and revoke the said development agreement and Power of Attorney.
Sigtia had also number deposited the 2.5 crores as interest free deposit and, therefore, the applicant in I.A. No.
Nobody appeared for Bombay Municipal Corporation on 27.06.2006.
988 of 2004 filed by some of the hutment dwellers number to issue annexure 3 and Letter of Intent in favour of Sigtia.
19848 of 2005 as withdrawn.
In the above writ petition, the Chief Promoter of the Society filed two affidavits before the High Court dated 07.06.2004 and 29.06.2004 expressing companyfidence and faith in the technical and financial capability of Sigtia to execute the project.
10281 of 2006.
The order passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition No.
It is further argued that Sigtia had taken numberefforts for development of the slum and in fact had numberfinancial or technical capability to carry out the development.
The Law Officer of SRA companyveyed to Sigtia that the cheque for Rs.2.5 crores companyld number be accepted by SRA as there was numberspecific order of the High Court to accept Rs.2.5 crores from Sigtia.
The Special Leave Petition was withdrawn by the petitioner on 26.09.2005.
2.51 crores but the same was number accepted by SRA.
988 of 2004.
11.3.2005 and also by the guidelines of the SRA for the development of the Vile Parle W Slum project.
He also specifically drew our attention to the order dated 11.03.2005 in Writ Petition No.
The applicant was number a party to the earlier writ petition.
The applicant put up a proposal to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay being the companypetent authority under the act expressing its willingness to re accommodate the hutment dwellers and offered to give certain portion of plot of land to Municipal Corporation free from encumbrances as per the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
10281 of 2006 should be recalled.
The Managing Committee of the original society have executed an agreement dated 16.07.1997 that the applicant and gave development rights in favour of the applicant for the development of the property.
They have also issued general Power of Attorney in favour of the applicant.
19848 of 2005 dated 13.04.2006 dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn filed by Mr. Nilesh Wakadey and Ors.
11318 of 2005 filed against the very same order in writ petition No.
Writ petition No.
Their application for intervention is allowed and Mr. Shekhar Naphade, advocate was heard on his behalf.
A. No.3 of 2006 was filed by the applicant M s Sigtia Construction Company Private Limited to recall the order dated 27.06.2006 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition No.
