NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    CIVIL APPEAL NOS.8418-8420 OF 2009

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) Nos.34060-34062/2009)

KEYA DEVELOPERS AND CONS. PVT. LTD.  Appellant(s)

                VERSUS

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SRA & ORS.   

Respondent(s)

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned  

senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.  

K.K.  Venugopal,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  

for respondent no.3.

3.   Only short issue involved in these appeals is  

with  regard  to  interpretation  of  the  directions  

issued  by  this  Court  by  its  order  dated  7th

November, 2006 in I.A. Nos.2-5 & 8 in Special Leave  

Petition (C) No.10281 of 2006.  It is submitted by  

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing  

for the appellant that the order passed by the High  

Court  of  Bombay  in  Writ  Petition  Nos.1589/2007,  

1075/2007 and 1036/2007 on 17th of September, 2009  

is contrary to the directions issued by this Court  

in the aforesaid order dated 7th November, 2006.  In  

order  to  appreciate  the  submissions  made  by  Mr.  

Rohatgi,  it  would  be  necessary  to  reproduce  the  

directions issued by this Court in the order dated  

7th November, 2006 and the directions issued by the  

High  Court  in  the  impugned  order  dated  17th of  

September, 2009.  On 7th November, 2006, this Court  

inter alia directed as follows:

“As directed by the order in Writ  Petition  No.988  of  2004  dated  11.03.2005 and order dated 04.05.2006  in Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 the  SRA  is  directed  to  call  the  two  developers, namely M/s. Keya and M/s.

Sigtia  and  dispose  of  their  application for issuing the Letter of  Intent and to pass appropriate orders  and  in  accordance  with  Maharashtra,  Slum Areas Improvement, Clearance and  RE-development  Act,  1971  and  also  strictly following the procedure for  submission processing and approval of  Slum  Rehabilitation  Scheme  and  to  Award  the  Letter  of  intent  to  the  developer who satisfies the required  qualifications  and  conditions  and  regulations and the provision of the  Act, 1971.”

4. Whereas  in  the  impugned  order  

dated  17th September,  2009,  the  High  Court  has  

directed as follows:

“In  our  opinion,  the  impugned  order is liable to be quashed and  set  aside.   Accordingly,  the  impugned  order  is  quashed  and  set  aside.  Matter is remanded to the  SRA.  The SRA to decide the proposal  of M/s. Sigtia Developers in terms  of the order dated March 11, 2005  passed  in  Writ  Petition  No.988  of  2004 as also the order dated May 4,  2006 passed by this Court in Writ  Petition  No.1277  of  2006,  and  the  order dated November 7, 2006 passed  by the Apex Court in SLP No.10281 of  2006, and on the basis of the record

as it stands today, as expeditiously  as possible, and in any case within  a period of three months from today.  All contentions of the parties are  expressly kept open.  The SRA will  consider  the  contentions  of  the  parties and will record reasons and  give findings. While considering the  proposal of M/s. Sigtia Developers,  the SRA will consider the objections  of M/s. Keya Developers, as also of  the Society, Mr. Jagtap & Others and  Mr. Mane.  If the SRA decides not to  issue LOI in favour of M/s. Sigtia  Developers, it will be open for the  parties to submit fresh development  Scheme as observed by this Court in  paragraph no.20 of the judgment and  order dated March 11, 2005 in Writ  Petition No.988 of 2004.  Rule is  made absolute in all the Petitions.”

5. Perusal of the above would show  

that the order passed by the High Court makes a  

significant departure from the directions issued by  

this Court.  It appears to give impression that the  

SRA is to decide only the proposal of M/s. Sigtia  

Developers,  whilst  taking  into  consideration  the  

objection of M/s. Keya Developers.  We are of the  

considered opinion that by order dated 7th November,

2006, this Court had very clearly directed the SRA  

to consider the proposals of M/s. Sigtia Developers  

and M/s. Keya Developers.  The applications of both  

the Developers for issuance of a Letter of Intent  

are to be considered by SRA in accordance with the  

Maharashtra, Slum Areas Improvement, Clearance and  

RE-development Act, 1971.  In other words, the SRA  

is  required  to  consider  the  claim  of  both  the  

Developers in accordance with law.  Mr. Rohatgi had  

taken serious objections to the observations made  

by the High Court in paragraph 30 of the impugned  

order, where it is observed as follows:

“It is thus clear that the first  issue that the SRA was to consider  is whether M/s. Sigtia is entitled  to issuance of Letter of intent.  No  doubt  as  per  the  order  of  the  Supreme  Court  M/s.  Keya  Developers  will also have to be heard on that  issue, but there is no question of  the  issue  whether  M/s.  Keya  Developers is entitled to Letter of  Intent  being  considered  unless  and  until  the  SRA  comes  to  the  conclusion that M/s. Sigtia is not

entitled  to  get  the  Letter  of  Intent.   In  other  words,  the  SRA  will have to first hear the parties  on the issue whether M/s. Sigtia is  entitled to Letter of Intent. If the  SRA  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  M/s. Sigtia is entitled to Letter of  Intent, then that will be the end of  the matter, and the order of this  Court and the order of the Supreme  Court  will  stand  complied  with.  However, in case the SRA comes to  the conclusion that  M/s. Sigtia is  not entitled to issuance of Letter  of Intent then it will have to take  up  the  issue  whether  M/s.  Keya  Developers  is  entitled  to  issuance  of  Letter  of  Intent  for  consideration.   The  application  of  M/s. Sigtia will have to be heard  and considered first, and it is only  thereafter  depending  on  the  result  of  that  application,  that  the  application of M/s. Keya Developers  can  be  considered,  assuming  that  M/s.  Keya  Developers  has  made  any  such  application  because  we  have  recorded  a  finding  above  that  no  complete  application  submitted  by  M/s.  Keya  Developers  is  on  the  original  record.   No  doubt,  while  considering  the  question  whether  M/s. Sigtia is entitled to issuance  of  Letter  of  Intent,  the  question  whether the agreement in favour of  M/s.  Sigtia  has  been  validly  terminated or not will have to be  considered.”

6.   These observations certainly tend to give the  

impression  that  M/s.  Keya  Developers  is  to  be  

considered, only in case the Letter of intent is  

not  issued  in  favour  of  M/s.  Sigtia  Developers.  

Thus, in our opinion, it is necessary to reiterate  

the directions issued by this Court in the order  

dated 7th November, 2006, which clearly directed the  

SRA to call the two Developers and dispose of their  

applications for issuance of the Letter of Intent  

and pass the appropriate order in accordance with  

law.  It was further directed that the SRA shall  

strictly  follow  the  procedure  for  submission  

processing  and  approval  of  Slum  Rehabilitation  

Scheme. Further direction was also issued to award  

the Letter of Intent to the Developer who satisfies  

the required qualifications and conditions.  We are  

informed that the time granted by the High Court,  

in the order dated 17th September 2009, to SRA for  

taking a decision has now expired. We, therefore,

direct  that  the  SRA  shall  now  take  a  decision  

within 15 days, from today.  

7. The impugned order passed by the  

High  Court  is  modified  to  the  extent  indicated  

above and the appeals are disposed of accordingly  

with no order as to costs.

 .....................J.

(TARUN CHATTERJEE)             

.....................J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)        

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 16, 2009.