http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 18  

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil)  10281 of 2006

PETITIONER: Ramchandra Mahadev Jagpat & Ors.

RESPONDENT: Chief Executive Officer & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/11/2006

BENCH: Dr. AR. Lakshmanan & Tarun Chatterjee

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

I.A. NOs. 2-5 & 8  IN   Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10281/2006 AND I.A.No.1 in S.L.P. (C) No\005\005\005\005.of 2006 (CC 5527) M/s Sigtia Construction Company Private Ltd.  \005 Applicant Vs. Ram Chandra Mahadev Jagpat & Ors.               \005.Respondents

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.

I.A. No.1 for impleadment is ordered on 10.07.2006.    M/s Sigtia Construction Company Private Limited was  impleaded as respondent No.5 in Special Leave Petition No.  10281 of 2006.    I.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. 10281 of 2006.  The order passed by this Court in  Special Leave Petition No. 10281/2006 dated 27.06.2006  reads thus: "O R D E R Heard Mr.L.N.Rao, senior advocate for the petitioners.  Mr. Sanjay V. Khande, Mr.B.S.Rao and Ms. Indra Sawhney,  advocates accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to  3.  We also heard their submissions.  

By a prayer for interim relief, the petitioners seek  direction directing the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to  issue a letter of intent in favour of M/s Keya Developers and  Construction Company (P) Ltd. For undertaking re- development work in the slum situated at Irla Tank, S.V.  Road, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai.  

The grievance of the petitioners is that despite no legal  impediment, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority was not  issuing the letter of intent in favour of M/s Keya Developers  and Construction Company (P) Ltd. despite a request made  by the Society.  According to them, it was merely a case of  replacement of previous developers M/s Sigtia Construction  Company Pvt. Ltd. who had not even started the project even  after almost eight years and whose agreement with the  Society had come to an end by efflux of time.

Mr. Sunil K.Varma, advocate, appears for the Chief  Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra (E),  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 18  

Mumbai (respondent No.1). The learned counsel submits  that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority will issue proper  orders within two weeks from today. In view of the  submission made by the learned counsel for respondent  No.1, we direct the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to issue  the letter of intent in favour of M/s Keya Developers and  Construction Company (P) Ltd. which is also represented by  Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel and the Society is  represented by Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned senior counsel.  

         The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly." 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 who  is directly affected by an order appointing M/s  Keya Developers and Construction Private Limited (in short  "Keya") as Developer was not made a party respondent in Writ  Petition No. 1277 of 2006 and also in the Special Leave  Petition No. 10281 of 2006 although the applicant was a party  in the previous proceedings, namely, Writ Petition No. 988 of  2004 which was filed before the High Court and the Special  Leave Petition No. 11318 of 2005 and 19848 of 2005.   According to the applicant, the respondents in the Special  Leave Petition No. 10281 are not contesting 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. 19848 of 2005 by  way of an affidavit that they will abide by any orders which  may be passed by this Court.  Nobody appeared for Bombay  Municipal Corporation on 27.06.2006.  Therefore, there was  nobody present who could have opposed the passing of the  order.  The applicant, against whom allegations were made,  was not made a party to the special leave petition.  It was the  duty of the petitioner in the special leave petition, to make the  applicant \026 Sigtia, who is directly affected, a party to the  special leave petition.  However, instead of doing that this  Court was given the impression that all the affected parties  were before this Court.  Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing for  the applicant Sigtia made the following submissions as to why  the order dated 27.06.2006 in special leave petition No. 10281  of 2006 should be recalled.  a)      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; b)      Sigtia submitted the proposal for re-development of  the slum known as Prem Nagar situated at Vile  Parle (W), CTS No. 439-442; 446-448; 451-1-15,  452, 453, 454A under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme  on 11.09.2002 with the consent of 1054 hutment   dwellers; c)      In all 1054 individual agreements and consent  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; d)      When the applicant was about to get the Letter of  Intent, the Writ Petition No. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 18  

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 nor financial capability  to complete the project.  e)      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  confidence and faith in the technical and financial  capability of Sigtia to execute the project.  The Chief  Executive Officer, SRA also filed additional affidavit  on 11.02.2005 supporting the scheme in totality.   f)      The High Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition  No. 988 of 2004 on 11.03.2005 directed the SRA to  put additional conditions as follows:- a.      Obtaining security deposit of Rs.2.5 crores from the  developer to safeguard the interests of the Slum  Dwellers. b.      Supervision by the Senior Engineer of Bombay  Municipal Corporation at the cost of the developer. c.      No construction of sale component till all the slum  dwellers are rehabilitated in the new buildings, and  d.      Undertaking/ indemnity from the developer for fulfilling  the above three conditions.

Out of 9 petitioners in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004, one  Nazir Khan Yakub Khan alone filed a Special Leave Petition  No. 11318 of 2005 challenging the order of the High Court  passed in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004.  Sigtia was impleaded  in the special leave petition as Respondent No.7.  The Special  Leave Petition was withdrawn by the petitioner on 26.09.2005.   4 other petitioners out of original 9 filed Special Leave Petition  No. 19848 of 2005 challenging the order in Writ Petition No.  988 of 2004 and obtained interim stay on 19.09.2005 from  this Court.  Due to the above said stay order, Sigtia could not  take any further steps towards the implementation of the  project.  The stay order continued till 13.04.2006 on which  date this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition No. 19848  of 2005 as withdrawn.  During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition No.  19848 of 2005, counsel of Prem Nagar Co-operative Housing  Society gave notices dated 26.04.2005 and 06.06.2005  purporting to revoke the development agreement and the  Power of Attorney executed in favour of Sigtia.  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.  A public notice 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  Management of the society also decided to appoint one \026 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.   In the above special leave petition, certain interlocutory  applications were filed by some hutment dwellers praying for  directions to SRA to examine and consider the proposed  scheme for rehabilitation submitted by M/s Keya.  These IAs  were dismissed along with the special leave petition.  The very same slum dwellers filed Writ Petition No. 1277  of 2006 seeking the same prayer alleging that Sigtia did not  commenced 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.  Sigtia was not made a party to this writ petition.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 18  

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. 2.5  crores by SRA in the matter and also would furnish indemnity  as required by SRA.  On 04.05.2006, the High Court passed  an order in Writ Petition No. 1277 of 2006 directing the SRA to  call the parties in terms of the judgment of the Court.  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. 1277 of 2006 and that the  applicant was not made a party to the writ petition and,  therefore, they were not heard at all and requested the SRA to  postpone the hearing fixed on 03.06.2006 to enable Sigtia to  move the High Court.  However, there was no response from  the SRA.  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.   The Law Officer of SRA conveyed to Sigtia that the cheque for  Rs.2.5 crores could not be accepted by SRA as there was no  specific order of the High Court to accept Rs.2.5 crores from  Sigtia.  The Principal Secretary, Housing Department in  compliance with the order dated 11.03.2005 issued clear  directions to SRA to issue Letter of Intent in favour of Sigtia.   On 21.06.2006, the petitioners in the Writ Petition No. 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.   Sigtia was again not made a party in the special leave petition.   This Court, on 27.06.2006, passed an order directing  SRA to issue Letter of Intent in favour of Keya within two  weeks.   Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel strenuously  contended that before issuance of the Letter of Intent certain  conditions ought to be fulfilled by a developer as per the rules  and regulations of SRA and as per the guidelines and  regulations of SRA, a developer needs to obtain Annexure-II  and Annexure-III from SRA.  Annexure II is issued when the  developer shows that he has consent from atleast 70% eligible  hutment dwellers and Annexure III is issued when SRA is  satisfied about the financial and technical capability of the  developer. It is not disputed that the applicant has obtained  both the Annexures and therefore there is no reason for not  issuing LOI to the applicant.  It is submitted that the Keya  Developer does not have consent of atleast 70% hutment  dwellers and therefore is not entitled to get LOI issued in its  favour for the said project.  Moreover SRA having been set up  by the State in exercise of its powers under the Slum Act, it is  ultimately for it to decide as to who should be permitted to  undertake the redevelopment of slum and the SRA has shown  confidence in the applicant by filing affidavits before the  Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.988 of 2004. According to Mr. Arun Jaitley, the purported termination  of the development agreement with Sigtia by the society is  illegal, without authority of law as the society has no authority  to do so.  It is further submitted that 1054 slum dwellers filed  consent affidavits in favour of the applicant in the year 2002  itself and therefore the Chief Promoter and few Committee  members of the Society cannot terminate the appointment of  the developer.  In fact the original Writ Petitioner who filed  Writ Petition No. 988/2004, namely, Nazir Khan Yakub Khan  and others made serious allegations against the Chief  Promoter - Shri Vichare and few Managing Committee  members that they have manipulated the records and got the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 18  

extra units to their family members. He would further submit that as per Section 3(k) of the  Maharashtra Slum Area (Improvement, Clearance and Re- development) Act, 1971, the SRA is bound to follow the  directions given by the Government of Maharashtra for the  implementation of provisions under the Act and that the  Government issued directions to SRA to issue letter of intent  to Sigtia way back on 20.06.2005 but those directions have  not been complied with.  Mr. Jaitley further submitted that the  main grievance of the slum dwellers in the I.As filed in this  Court and in the Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006 is that no  steps have been taken by Sigtia Constructions towards the  completion of the project.  It is submitted that after obtaining  Annexure II and Annexure III from SRA, when the applicant  was about to get LOI the writ petition No. 988 of 2005 was  filed on 31.3.2004 challenging the technical and financial  capability of the applicant.  After the said Writ Petition was  dismissed, the applicant approached SRA many times to get  LOI but it received no response and this fact has been  recorded by the Principal Secretary, Housing in its order dated  20.06.2005.  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.  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. 2.51 crores but the  same was not accepted by SRA.  That there has been no delay  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.  Mr. Arun Jaitely further submitted that the applicant  was a necessary party in the Writ Petition No.1277 of 2006  and also to the above special leave petition as it was appointed  as developer by the society and is at having consent of more  than 70% of the slum dwellers in the area and therefore, any  order passed issuing Letter of Intent to some other developer  gravely injures the applicant and therefore no such order can  be passed without giving an opportunity to the applicant to be  heard.    Concluding his arguments, Mr. Jaitley submitted that  the order has been obtained behind the back of the applicant  Sigtia and that the order is contrary to the order of the High  Court dated 11.03.2005 passed in writ petition No. 988 of  2004 which has become final with the dismissal of Special  Leave Petition No. 11318 of 2005 and 19848 of 2005.  In this context, Mr. Arun Jaitley invited our attention to  the order dated 11.03.2005 passed in Writ Petition No. 988 of  2004.  At the time of hearing, Mr. Jaitley also invited our  attention to the order passed by the High Court in Writ  Petition No. 1277 of 2006 dated 04.05.2006.  It is useful to  reproduce the said short order which reads thus:  "CORAM:  F.I. REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: 4th May,2006.

P.C.:               In the ordinary course, we would not have  entertained this petition when there is a society who is  responsible for the development.  However, on behalf of  respondent No.2, their learned counsel makes a statement  that they had already communicated to Respondent No.1 to  appoint respondent No.3 as a developer and that the  application is pending before the Respondent No.1  pursuant to the termination of the first developer by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 18  

Respondent No.2.  The respondent No.1 to call the parties  in terms of the judgement of this court and after hearing  the parties, dispose of the application of Respondent No.2  according to law within the period of six weeks from today.

(F.I. REBELLO, J.)                          (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)"

He also drew our attention to para 12 of the order in Writ  Petition No. 988 of 2004 passed by the High Court which  reads thus: "The SRA having been set up by the State in exercise of its  power under the Slum Act, it is ultimately, for it to decide as  to who should be permitted to undertake the redevelopment  of slum.  In this behalf, perusal of the relevant statutory  provisions including Section 13 would make it abundantly  clear that the SRA is empowered to permit land holders of  occupants of an area which is declared as slum  rehabilitation area to undertake scheme of development of  such land and if they do not come forward with a scheme for  redevelopment within a reasonable time, the SRA may decide  to redevelop such land by entrusting it to any other Agency.  In the instant case, respondent No.7 has been selected by  respondent No.6.  The SRA is satisfied that the requisite 70%  numbers/ occupiers of slum area have come forward and  reposed confidence in respondent no.7. Since petitioners  raised objections to the capacity and capability of respondent  No.7, this Court issued directions that these aspects be  scrutinized and verified once again.  Even that exercise is  now complete and a report is submitted by the CEO of SRA.  In such circumstances, we are of the view that all aspects  have been considered by the SRA and its decision cannot be  faulted. More so, when the proposal is at a primary stage."

Our attention has also been drawn to the order of this  Court in Special Leave Petition No. 19848 of 2005 dated  13.04.2006 dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn filed by  Mr. Nilesh Wakadey and Ors. preferred against the judgment  and order dated 11.03.2005 in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004.   Likewise, Special Leave Petition No. 11318 of 2005 filed  against the very same order in writ petition No. 988 of 2004  was also dismissed as withdrawn.  We may also usefully refer to the letter dated 02.06.2006  of Sigtia addressed to SRA, the relevant portion of which reads  thus:  "In this connection, we wish to submit that M/s. Sigtia  Construction Pvt. Limited is bound by the directive and  conditions in the High Court Judgment dt. 11.3.2005 and  also by the guidelines of the SRA for the development of the  Vile-Parle (W) Slum project. As such, the company will be  complying with all the conditions recommended by the SRA  and accepted by the Hon’ble High Court.

      In pursuance of the said High Court order  dt.11.3.2005, M/s. Sigtia Construction Pvt. Ltd. is hereby  depositing a sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores  Fifty Lakhs only) drawn on Standard Chartered Bank,  Santacruz  (W) Branch, Mumbai vide Cheque No.991396 dt.  2.6.2006 towards the interest free deposit with SRA as the  performance related guarantee as directed by the Hon’ble  High Court in its landmark judgment dt.11.3.2005. The  SRA may put it in its fixed deposit account, as it may deem  fit.        Besides interest free deposit of Rs. 2.5 crocres, M/s.  Sigtia Construction Pvt. Ltd. will comply with and abide  other conditions such as \026                                        

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 18  

(a)     First we will construct Rehab portion in all respect and  then ask permission of sale portion.  (b)     We accept the Supervision of B.M.C. Engineer who will  monitor the project.   (c)     We will give required undertaking/indemnity bond etc.  as directed by Hon’ble High Court and as desired by  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.  The relevant portion reads thus:- "In view of the above, I, N. Rama Rao, Principal Secretary,  Housing Department, Government of Maharashtra, in the  capacity of the Administrative Head of the Department,  direct that  

(1)     LOI be issued in favour of Sigtia Constructions Pvt.Ltd.  who have a joint venture agreement with Spark  Developers as stated above and who had completed all  the formalities to ensure the implementation of the  project without permitting any further delay

(2)     The CEO, SRA is further directed to comply with the other  directions and suggestions given by the Hon’ble High  Court in its order dated 11.03 2005.

(3)     The Developer also, hereby directed to comply with the  conditions imposed by the Hon’ble High Court in the said  order."

It is to be noted that this order was not challenged before  any forum.  Our attention was also drawn to the notice dated  26.04.2005 issued by Mr. Suresh P. Chaugule to Sigtia and  the further notice dated 06.06.2005 by the very same advocate  to the Chief Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority on  termination of appointment of developer.  A copy of the same  was also marked to Sigtia Constructions.  Our attention was  also drawn to the IA No. Nil of 2006 filed by Nilesh Wakade  and Ors. in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19848 of 2005 in  which Babita Baliram Tambe & Ors. as applicants made the  following prayer in the above I.A. : "P R A Y E R        Thus, in the facts and circumstances, it is most  respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be  pleased to:-   (a)     Direct that the rehabilitation of the slum area in  question is carried out at the earliest;

(b)     Direct M/s. Keya Developers & Construction Pvt.  Ltd. Developers & Construction (P) Ltd., Tardeo Air- conditioned Market, Tardeo, Mumbai-34 to produce  its proposed Scheme for Rehabilitation;

(c)     Direct the Respondent Authorities to forthwith  examine and consider the said proposed Scheme for  Rehabilitation submitted by M/s Keya Developers &  Construction Pvt. Ltd. Developers (P) Ltd; and  

(d) If the above scheme is approved by the Respondent  No.2, then the Respondent Authorities and the  developer be directed to forthwith implement the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 18  

Scheme in a time bound manner subject to such terms  and conditions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and  proper."

It was also brought to our notice about the undertaking  given on the stamp paper by the Chief Promoter and Members  of the Managing Committee of Vile Parle Prem Nagar  Cooperative Housing Society who declared as under:- "(1)    That the General Body of the Vile Parle Prem Nagar  Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) in their  meeting held on 8.9.2001 has confirmed the  appointment of M/s. Sigtia Construction Pvt. Ltd.  as our Developer and Shri Bipin Khatri as Architect  of the S.R.A. project to be undertaken by our  society.  

(2)     That in pursuance to the above appointments of the  Developer and the Architect, both agencies have  carried out voluminous work in connection with the  formulation of S.R.A proposal and to submit the  same to the office of S.R.A.  For doing this they had  to obtain, the necessary undertakings from over  1000 hutment dwellers on Rs.20/- stamps paper,  surveying the area by appointing Surveyor,  preparation of plans and other relevant documents  for obtaining Annexure-II.  The developer has  obtained Annexure-II and submitted the required  information in Annexure \026 I & III to the office of  S.R.A. for issuance of Letter of Intent to our S.R.A.  proposal in shortest possible time with active  support from the society and we are satisfied with  their performance in this regard.

(3)     That we have not engaged any other Developers or  the Architect. This question did not arise since the  present Developer and the Architect have done their  duties to the expectation of the Society. While  carrying out the job by the Developer and the  Architect they have carried out the job with due  consultation with the Society and have kept us        informed of the progress of the work from time to  time.

(4)     That the Society hereby confirm and undertake to  continue the Developer M/s. Sigtia Construction  Pvt.Ltd. and the Architect Mr. Bipin Khatri as our  Developer and Architect respectively till the  completion of the S.R.A. project under D.C.  Regulation 33(10) undertaken by our Vile Parle Prem  Nagar Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed)

For Vile-Parle Premnagar Co-operative  Housing Society. (Proposed)                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                       Shamrao A. Vichare                                                              Chief Promoter      Date:26.2.2004"                    Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Solicitor General  appeared for the Slum Rehabilitation Authority.  He placed  before us the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,  Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971.  He also invited our  attention to the procedure for submission, processing and  approval of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes which reads thus:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 18  

"1.     All slums and pavements whose inhabitants’ names  and structures appear in the electoral roll prepared with  reference to 1st January, 1995 or a date prior thereto and  who are actual occupants of the hutments are eligible for the  slum rehabilitation scheme.

               2.      70% or more of the eligible hutment-dwellers in a slum  or pavement in a viable stretch at one place have to show  their willingness to join slum rehabilitation scheme and  come together to form a co-operative housing society of all  eligible hutment-dwellers through a resolution to that effect.  The following resolution should be adopted:  

       (a)     Resolution electing a chief Promoter.  

(b)     Resolution giving the chief promoter authority to apply  for reservation of name for co-operative housing  society.  

(c)     To collect share capital (Rs. 50/- per member for slum  societies) and Re. 1/- as entrance fee and to open  account in Mumbai District Central Co- operative/Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd  (any branch)  

3.      The chief promoter, office bearers and the members of  the proposed society should collect the documents such as  7/12 extract and the PR card of the plot on which the slum is  situate. They should then get the plot surveyed/measured  and prepare map of the plot showing slum structures therein  with the help of surveyors attached to the office of Additional  Collector (Encroachment) or the Deputy Collector  (Encroachment) or the Deputy Collector (Encroachment of the  zone.  

4.      While undertaking the survey, they should collect the  information of the proposed members/slum-dwellers and fill  up land occupied by the slum-dwellers, number and type of  structures such as residential, industrial, commercial,  amenity structures etc. and the list of eligible and ineligible  occupants and consent of the slum-dwellers to join the  scheme. Earlier the promoter/co-operative housing society  had to first approach the different Competent Authorities  namely Additional Collector for the slums on government and  private lands and the land owning authorities for the slums  on different public authority lands, for obtaining certified  Annexure-II, before they could put in application for slum  rehabilitation scheme SRA. As a simplification measure, this  procedure is now discontinued and Annexure-II format is now  required to be filled by the promoter/co-operative housing  society itself for submitting building proposal to SRA, so that  the scrutiny of the proposal and certification of Annexure-II  can start simultaneously. Annexure-II needs to be submitted  in duplicate. As a measure of further simplification,  Additional Collector (Encroachment) is being designated as  the sole Competent Authority for deciding eligibility and for  taking eviction action against non-participants in slum  rehabilitation schemes."    

5. The chief promoter and the office bearers of the proposed  society should then apply for name reservation of the  proposed co-operative housing society along with the self- prepared Annexure-II and the required resolutions to the  Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. To facilitate  this, office of the Assistant Registrar has been started in SRA

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 18  

itself. It is no longer necessary to approach different offices of  the              Co-operation Department for this purpose. The  assistant Registrar/SRA will issue a letter reserving the name  for the proposed co-operative housing society and permission  to open a bank account in the proposed society’s name.

6. While the above steps are being taken, the decision to  search a competent developer to act as a promoter has to be  taken up by the proposed co-operative housing society of  slum-dwellers. The society itself or an NGO/developer/owner  can take up slum rehabilitation scheme as a promoter.

7. The promoter so chosen has to enter into agreement with  every eligible slum-dweller while putting up slum  rehabilitation proposal to SRA for approval. SRA is in the  process of trying to evolve standard formats for the following  four types of agreements required in the scheme, with the  approval of the State Government.

a) Consent-cum-agreement between the promoter and the  slum-dwellers. b) Development rights/Agreement to lease between the  promoter and the land owning authority. c) Lease agreement between the land owning authority and  the co-operative society of slum-dwellers. d) Lease agreement between the land owning authority and  the co-operative society of free-sale tenement buyers.

8. The promoter has also to appoint an architect in  consultation with the proposed co-operative housing society  of slum-dwellers to prepare the plans of development of the  slum area as per the DCR-33(10). It is expected that the  architect ensures community participation in preparation of  the building plans. All required documents such as building  plan, layout plan, PR Card etc. along with Annexure-I,  Annexure-II and Annexure-III are to be submitted to SRA by  the architect along with an application for the slum  rehabilitation scheme. A checklist of all such documents  required for submission is available in SRA office.

10. Annexure-III is prescribed to asses the financial capability  of the promoter. The items contained in Annexure-III are self  explanatory. Keeping in view the sensitivity of this  information, it is kept strictly confidential by SRA.  

11. After a pre-security by a designated engineer of SRA, to  ensure completeness of the proposal submitted, so far as  documents are concerned, proposals are accepted. Then a  computerized file number is allotted to the scheme on  payment of scrutiny fees which are charged at half file  number is allotted to the scheme on payment of scrutiny fees  which are charged bat half the rate of the Municipal  Corporation’s general building permission fees. Upon  acceptance, the scrutiny of Annexures, I, II and III start  simultaneously in the building permission Wing, Eligibility  Certification Wing and Accounts & Finance Wing  respectively."

He also invited our attention to para 18 of the order in  Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004 dated 11.03.2005  "In the affidavit filed on 11th February, 2005 the SRA has  further pointed out that the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme  proposal is at primary scrutiny stage and not yet approved.  They have pointed out that eligibility of the members of  Managing Committee of respondent no.6 shall be thoroughly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 18  

scrutinized by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority before  issuing LOI and in any case within eight weeks from the date  of this affidavit. Mr. Singh appearing for 7th respondent  makes a statement that the developer will file necessary  undertaking as per para No.7 of the affidavit dated 11th  February 2005 of SRA, within such time as is stipulated by  it.  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 no.7. He has also agreed to  furnish indemnity as insisted by SRA."

He also specifically drew our attention to the order dated  11.03.2005 in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004 and the order  dated 04.05.2006 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.  19848 of 2005.  The said Babita Baliram was also petitioner  No. 10 in Writ Petition No. 1277 of 2006 which was verified in  April, 2006 whereas the final order in the said writ petition  was made on 04.05.2006.  Concluding his arguments, the  learned Solicitor General submitted that as per the guidelines  there are several conditions to be fulfilled by the slum  dwellers/proposed society as well as by the proposed  developer and remarks required to be obtained on the proposal  from concerned authorities before issuing Letter of Intent.  The  SRA also to verify the resolution passed by the general body of  the slum dwellers, proposed society by majority for appointing  or replacing the developer for the development of the scheme.   It is also necessary to verify by the SRA to see whether the plot  under the development is not affected by any reservation such  as playground or recreation ground in view of the interim stay  order in writ Petition No. 1152 of 2002 of the High Court.  The  SRA has to verify whether the proposed appointed developer  has the financial capacity to undertake and complete the  same.  Therefore, in the context of the submissions made  above by the learned Solicitor General further directions with  regard to this Court’s order dated 27.06.2006 should be given  to SRA.  As already noticed, the writ petition No. 1277 of 2006  was filed by the very same petitioner in SLP No. 10281 of 2006   Sigtia was not made a party to the writ petition No. 1277 of  2006.  However, the High Court, by order dated 04.05.2006 in  writ petition No. 1277 of 2006 has directed the SRA to call the  parties in terms of the judgment of the High Court dated  11.03.2005 in writ petition No. 988 of 2004 and after hearing  the parties disposed of the application of the society  respondent No.2 according to law within 6 weeks from  04.03.2006.  It is also useful to refer to the direction given in  the order dated 11.03.2005 in para 20 in writ petition No. 988  of 2004.  The High Court, by the said order, has observed that  it is not necessary to quash or set aside the Scheme or issue  further directions as sought and that final approval have not  been granted by SRA and if SRA decides not to issue the Letter  of Intent in favour of respondent No.7 (Sigtia), it will always be  open for the parties to submit a fresh development scheme.  In  view of the order dated 11.03.2005 and 04.05.2006 of the  High Court, the learned Solicitor General submitted that the  SRA has to call both Sigtia and Keya in order to dispose of the  application of the society according to law.  Mr. Harish Salve appearing for the petitioner in special  leave petition Shri Ramchandra Mahadev Jagpat submitted  that SRA cannot decide any contractual dispute and that the  order dated 11.03.2005 put certain obligations on Sigtia and  that the Society in its general body meeting dated 29.05.2005  terminated the agreement with Sigtia and decided to invite  other builders.  In this context, he drew our attention to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 18  

unanimous resolution passed by the Society in regard to the  appellant of Keya for the development of slum property at  Premnagar dated 10.06.2005.  This letter dated 10.06.2005  was addressed to Keya Developer and Construction Company,  Mumbai.  The letter reads as follows: "We are informing hereof that the Managing Committee had  decided in the meeting held on 6th June, 2005 Monday at  8.00 p.m. vide Resolution No.6 to develop the property  bearing C.S. Nos. 439,439-1 & 2,440-1 to 6,441, 441-1 to  3,442,442-1 to 3,443,443-1 to 15,444,444-1 to  6,446,447,447-1 to 3,448,448-1 to 5,451-1 to 3,452-1 to  24,453,453-1 to 5,454(A), Irla, Vile-parle (West) in the  District of Mumbai, the area is 28200 sq. mtrs. And the  owner is the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. This land be  declared Slum as per Slum Act 1971 Sub-section 4 (1). You  are appointed to re-develop the said property as per  Maharashtra Government Rules and Regulations. In the  subject-matter we are enclosing herewith the true certified  copy to you. You are requested to intimate your consent in  this regards and co-operation.  

True Extract of Resolution No. 6 of General lBody meeting  held on 8th June 2005 at 8.00p.m. Committee Office   RESOLUTION NO.6.

Resolved that M/s Keya Developer and Construction Pvt.Ltd.  Having its office at 302, Tardeo Air \026 Condition Market,  Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400024 is and be appointed as  Developer to develop the slum property by providing  permanent alternate accommodation of 225 sq.ft. Carpet  Area to all eligible Slum dwellers and to sell balance from  sale component in open market as per O.C.R.33 (10) of 1991.  Also power care given to said developer to enable him to  exercise the powers for the development of the said property.  This appointment will remaining in force and valid till entire  Project is successfully completed in all respect as tenant are  handed over to all slum dwellers. No an y Manaaging  Committee, existing or forth coming, shall have any right to  change the developer under any circumstances whatsoever  may be the nature.

                         Proposed By: Mrs.Sandhaya Ketemkar                           Seconded By: Mr. Sanjay Kadam

RESOLUTION UNANIMOUSLY PASSED

                                                               Sd/-                                                 (Mr. Shamrao Vicharee)                                                         Chief Promoter"  

He also drew our attention to the subsequent events in  the appointment of Keya Developers and the letter dated  10.06.2005 issued to Keya Developers made in the I.A. in  19848 of 2005 filed by Babita Baliram.  He also invited our  attention to the second round of litigation on the non-deposit  of the amount by Sigtia.  He also submitted that Sigtia have  acted on termination and have not challenged the termination  of the agreement.  Mr. Salve also submitted that there is no question of  fraud having played upon by this Court as alleged or told and  that the applicant Sigita has conveniently not mentioned that  his agreement with the society had come to an end by efflux of  time and stood cancelled on 24.04.2005 and that the society

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 18  

had also unanimously terminated the appointment of Sigtia as  the developer and that the prayer in writ petition No. 1277 of  2006 was directed against the SRA and that there was no  prayer or relief sought against the Sigtia and, therefore, Sigtia  was not arrayed as a party in the said writ petition and that  there was also no reason to make Sigtia as a party as they had  been replaced by a new developer as far back as June, 2005 of  which the Sigtia had notice.  Mr. Salve further submitted that  it is incorrect to say that the parties before this Court in  special leave petition (C) No. 10281 of 2006 were not the  affected parties.  In fact all the parties are affected parties  excepting the Sigtia who has undertaken no development work  from 1997 and even after agreement dated 2002 was entered  into with the society and therefore, Sigtia has no subsisting  legal or other rights whatsoever and the present I.A. to recall  the order deserves to be dismissed.   I.A.No. 9 of 2006 Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel filed an  application for impleadment in I.A. No. 9 of 2006 on behalf of  Nazeer Khan Yakub Khan who is also slum dweller.  Learned  senior counsel submitted even that in 1997 Sigtia was  appointed by the Society as a developer for the slum and the  appointment was approved by SRA.  However, no efforts were  taken by Sigtia for development.  As per the agreement Sigtia  the agreement has to complete the entire development work  within 3 years and if the development work was not so  completed the agreement was to be treated as cancelled  automatically.  It is further argued that Sigtia had taken no  efforts for development of the slum and in fact had no  financial or technical capability to carry out the development.   Sigtia had also not deposited the 2.5 crores as interest free  deposit and, therefore, the applicant in I.A. No. 9 of 2006 filed  special leave petition No. 11318 of 2005 before this Court  challenging the order dated 11.03.2005 and in the meantime,  the agreement of Sigtia with the society to develop the slum  itself came to an end on the expiry of 3 years from the date of  agreement and, thereafter, the Society at a general body  meeting dated 29.05.2005 resolved to terminate the  appointment of Sigtia as the developer and the SRA was also  informed of such decision since the appointment of Sigtia  stood terminated and a new developer had been appointed the  applicant Nazeer Khan Yakub Khan had no further grievance  as it was apparent that the development work of the slum  would finally commence and in these circumstances the  applicant withdraw special leave petition (C) No. 11318 of  2005 on 26.09.2005. Mr. Dave further submitted that the applicant in IA No. 9  of 2006 had always opposed the appointment of Sigtia as  developers as they had no technical capability to carry out the  development work and in fact undertook no work whatsoever  for over 8 years to the department of the slum dwellers and  other similar situate slum dwellers.  It is further submitted the  order in special leave petition No. 10281 of 2006 is fair and  just and in the interest of the slum dwellers who will finally be  able to see the development work of their slum being  undertaken and that the Sigtia have no legal right for  undertaking the development of the slum in view of the  termination and automatic cancellation of their agreement  with the Society.  I.A. No. 8 of 2006 The applicant is a Zuveriya Developer.  Their application  for intervention is allowed and Mr. Shekhar Naphade,  advocate was heard on his behalf.  I.A. No. 8 of 2006 was filed  to recall the order dated 27.06.2006 in special leave petition  No. 10281 of 2006 and allow the applicant to file a reply to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 18  

above special leave petition.  We have perused the intervention  application.  The applicant was not a party to the earlier writ  petition.  The applicant put up a proposal to the Municipal  Corporation of Greater Bombay being the competent 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.  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.  The Addl. Collector (Encroachment)  has fixed the hearing for the purpose of issuance of Annexure- 2 when one M/s Sigtia Construction Pvt. 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 applicant was not a party to  the writ petition No. 988 of 2004 filed by some of the hutment  dwellers not to issue annexure-3 and Letter of Intent in favour  of Sigtia.  The applicant or the original society was not a party  to the said writ petition upon knowledge the applicant has  taken out chamber summons in the petition to intervene in  the matter.  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.  The  applicant again made a representation to the SRA.  The  applicants are agreeable to obtain similar agreement from  slum dwellers in support of the said proposal with a view to  develop the property. Writ petition No. 1277 of 2006 was also filed by the  petitioners without impleading the applicant before the High  Court.  It is submitted without making the applicant a party  the petitioner has obtained an order dated 27.06.20906  whereby this Court has directed the SRA to issue a Letter of  Intent in favour of Keya Developers.  Hence the applicant is  making the present intervention application for recalling the  said order dated 27.06.2006.  In our opinion, the above I.A.  has no merits and is belated.  No relief can, therefore, be  granted to the applicant.  I.A. No. 8 of 2006 stands dismissed.  Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing  for Keya Developers submitted that Sigtia did not take any  recourse to any legal proceedings to challenge the termination  and by letter dated 10.06.2005 Keya was informed of the  resolution appointing it as developer to develop the property  on the terms and conditions mentioned therein.  In view of the  termination of Sigtia as developer two groups of slum dwellers  who had filed special leave petition before this Court against  the order of the High Court dated 11.03.2005 withdrew the  special leave petition on 26.09.2005 and 13.04.2005  respectively.  Sigtia was represented in the proceedings and  did not represent the factum of expiry/termination of the  agreement between Sigtia and the society.  Keyas since the  intimation of the resolution of the society has been taking all  steps within its power to prepare for the development of the  property including the appointment  of M/s Anil Chawla and  Associates as architects and made arrangements for a transit  camp for residence of the members of the society during the  period of re-development.  The Keya’s has also made  arrangements with HDFC Bank Ltd. for provision of loan of  over Rs. 12 crores towards the implementation of the project  and is also ready and willing to deposit such amount as this  Court may determine by way of security deposit.  Keyas has  also approached the SRA for grant of Letter of Intent in its  favour for the purpose of transit accommodation and has also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 18  

already incurred an expenditure of Rs.45,56,720/- Keyas has  also not been served with any notice or order of any Court  with respect to any challenge to the termination of the Sigtia  or appointment of the Keyas as developer of the property.  In  these circumstances, Dr. Singhvi submitted that the SRA was  bound to consider the application for issue of Letter of Intent  to Keyas and Keyas has also been approached from time to  time by the society and its members for taking further steps to  commence the actual work of re-development of the property.   However, Keyas was unable to commence the actual work of  re-development for want of Letter of Intent from the authority  in the present special leave petition No. 10281 of 2006.  This  Court passed the order in the presence of the counsel for all  the parties and deny that any fraud has been played upon this  Court as alleged.  It is further submitted Sigtia has been  terminated as developer of the property long before the writ  petition was filed in the High Court.  According to learned  senior counsel Sigtia is not a necessary party to the special  leave petition and that it had the consent of more than 70% of  the slum dwellers and that the same is in any event irrelevant  after the termination of the contract with the society.   Concluding his submission, learned senior counsel submitted  that the applicant has failed to make out any good ground for  the recall of the order dated 27.06.2006 and, therefore, the  said application is liable to be dismissed.  Mr. T.L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel  appearing for Vile Parle Premnagar Society submitted that in  view of the termination of the agreement given to Sigtia, Sigtia  is not a necessary party to the special leave petition 10281  and that the SRA should be directed to consider only the  application made by Keyas. We have given our anxious and careful consideration to  the lengthy submissions made by all the learned senior  counsel appearing for the respective parties with reference to  the pleadings, annexures etc.  The applicant Sigtia have  explained to this Court as to how the deposit of Rs.2.5 crores  was not be deposited with SRA.  It also denied that the  agreement entered into between Sigtia and the society came to  an end on 25.04.2005 by efflux of time.  In this context,  Clause 22 of the agreement must be read as a whole and when  so read, it would be clear that the developer was to start the  actual construction after the issuance of the commencement  certificate by the authority.  Therefore, the period of 3 years  must be construed to begin from the date when  commencement certificate is issued and not from the date of  execution of the agreement.  It was also submitted that the  letters dated 25.04.2005 and 06.06.2005 were issued by 2 or  3 members of the society who were acting with ulterior motive  and in collusion with the rival developer.  Even the SRA to  whom the letter dated 06.06.2005 was addressed in its  counter affidavit filed before this Court in the present  proceedings has stated that they did not take notice of the said  letter of termination as the letter was not supported by the  relevant resolution of the society.  After 11.03.2005, Sigtia  approached the SRA on several occasions requesting for the  issuance of the Letter of Intent but since no response was  coming from the Housing Department of Government of  Maharashtra on 10.06.1995.  In our view after the dismissal of  the special leave petition No. 19848 of 2005, the order of the  High Court dated 11.03.2005 attained finality and there was  no proposal of M/s Keya Developers before the SRA on  13.04.2006 and, therefore, there was no question of SRA  considering the proposal made by the new developer.  In our  view, Sigtia was a necessary party to the writ petition and to  the special leave petition No. 10281 of 2006 as it directly

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 18  

affected by any order appointing Keya as developer.  The  society has also entered into an agreement and also executed  an irrevocable general Power of Attorney dated 19.03.2004  wherein expressed its satisfaction with the progress in the  work made by the Sigtia and also by the undertaking dated  26.02.2004 where the society undertook to continue with  Sigtia as developer till the completion of the SRA project.   Though it is contended by Sigtia that the termination by the  society on 29.04.2005 was illegal and without authority, the  Sigtia has not so far challenged the order of termination by the  society.  This important factor has also to be taken note off by  the SRA at the time of considering the case of Sigtia along with  Keya Developers.  It is also stated that the consent affidavits of  more than 70% of the slum dwellers had already been  obtained by Sigtia.  It is also submitted in the rejoinder  affidavit that Sigtia did have the technical expertise and  financial capability to complete the work and that all these  issues were decided in favour of Sigita by the High Court in  writ petition No. 988 of 2004 by order dated 11.03.2005 which  order has attained finality in view of the dismissal of special  leave petition Nos. 11318 of 2005 and 19848 of 2005.  Sigtia,  after receiving the copy of the letters dated 24.05.2006 and  06.06.2005 sent a reply dated 15.06.2005  wherein the Sigtia  submitted that the purported termination is illegal and  without any authority and no further reply was sent by the  society to the said letter.  Moreover, in the hearing held before  the Principal Secretary dated 20.06.2005, the representative of  the society made no arguments with regard to the purported  termination of the agreement.  Therefore, it is contended that  the society has not acted on the letter of termination and that  the matter has come to an end and, therefore, Sigtia did not  file any petition to challenge the purported termination.  It is  also argued that the prayer in the writ petition No. 1277 of  2006 adversely affects the interests of the Sigtia.  It is stated  that with the dismissal of special leave petition No. 19848 of  2005 all the applications filed in the said petition also stood  dismissed and, therefore, the petitioners in the special leave  petition had no right to approach this Court by way of writ  petition making the same prayer which was made in the  application for directions filed in special leave petition No.  19848 of 2005 and that the effect of the order dated  13.04.2006 is that the order of the High Court dated  11.03.2005 which was not challenged in the special leave  petition attained finality and that in the application for  directions filed in the special leave petition No. 19848 of 2005  the society had raised the issue of termination of agreement of  Sigtia and appointment of Keya developers and the same stood  dismissed with the dismissal of the said special leave petition.   Therefore, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Arun Jaitley in any  subsequent proceedings where the termination of the  agreement of applicant Sigtia with the society and replacement  of Sigtia a new developer is a subject-matter,  Sigtia is a  proper and necessary party to it.  We see much force and  substance in the said argument.  In our view, the applicant  Sigtia has also the right to have a hearing before the SRA  along with Keya Developers, the new appointee.  It must also  be seen that the relief sought in the special leave petition No.  10281 of 2006 though only against SRA but in effect against  the applicant Sigtia and, therefore, Sigtia is the necessary  party to any proceedings wherein the replacement of the Sigtia  with a new developer and the termination of the agreement  with the Sigtia is in issue and, therefore, Sigtia should have  been made a party respondent in the writ petition No. 1277 of  2004 as well as special leave petition No. 10281 of 2006.  It is  also not in dispute that Sigtia was impleaded as party

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 18  

respondent No. 7 in the special leave petition which came to  be withdrawn by the petitioner therein on 26.09.2005 on  which date Sigtia appeared through their advocate in this  Court.  As rightly submitted by the learned Solicitor General  after the withdrawal of special leave petition No. 11318 of  2005 by the petitioner \026 Nazeer Khan Yakub Khan both the  developers i.e. M/s Sigtia and Keya Developers kept on  submitting applications with the SRA.  However, due to  pendency of the special leave petition in this Court, SRA was  not able to take any decision on the representations of the  developers as well as the society.  At the time of hearing, our  attention was also drawn to the guidelines and the several  conditions to be fulfilled by the slum dwellers/the society/ as  well as the developers and the remarks required to be obtained  on the proposal from the concerned authorities before issuing  Letter of Intent.  The SRA has also to verify the resolution as  passed by the general body of the slum dwellers proposed  society by majority for appointing or replacing the developers  for the development of the scheme.  It is also necessary for  SRA to verify and to see whether the plot under the  development is not affected by any reservation such as  playground or recreation ground in view of the stay granted by  the High Court in writ petition No. 1152 of 2002 and also to  verify whether the proposed appointed developer has the  financial capacity to undertake and complete the scheme.   Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we hold that Sigtia is a  necessary and proper party to the special leave petition No.  10281 of 2006 filed by Ramchandra Mahadev Jagpat & Ors.  We say that the order dated 27.06.2006 was passed in S.L.P.  No. 10281/2006 on the basis of representation made by all  the respective senior counsel appearing at that time.  The  order was not obtained as playing fraud on Court as alleged by  the applicant herein.  Now, it is brought to our notice and  made out a clear case as to why Sigtia was a necessary party  to the special leave petition No. 10281 of 2006 and in the light  of the directions given by the High Court dated 11.03.2005 in  writ petition No. 988 of 2004 and of the order dated  04.05.2006 in writ petition No. 77 of 2006.  We have,  therefore, no hesitation to recall our order dated 27.06.2006 in  special leave petition No. 10281 of 2006.  Since the entire  matter was argued at length now by all the respective senior  counsel, there is no necessity to rehear special leave petition  No. 10281 of 2006.  This apart in the concluding portion of  our order dated 27.06.2006 in special leave petition No. 10281  of 2006, this Court directed the SRA to issue proper orders   within two weeks from 27.06.2006.  The said direction is also  not correct.  This Court ought to have directed the SRA, if at  all, to consider issuing of the Letter of Intent in favour of Keya  Developers in view of the replacement of previous Developers  M/s Sigtia.  We, therefore, allow the application I.A. No. 3 of 2006  filed by the applicant Sigtia and recall our order dated  27.06.2006 passed in special leave petition No. 10281 of 2006  and pass the following order:- 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 the 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 18  

provision of the Act, 1971.                                                                             The SRA is also directed to consider as to whether the  guidelines and other conditions are fulfilled by the slum  dwellers/the society/as well by the developers and issue  notice to the society also and hear them and pass appropriate  speaking order within 3 months from today.  The above  direction is issued in the larger interest of the slum dwellers  and in order to rehabilitate the poor slum dwellers and needy  slum dwellers at the earliest.  We place on record the very  valuable assistance and guidance of all the learned senior  counsel rendered to this Court and, in particular, the learned  Solicitor General inviting our attention to the proper  procedure, guidelines and conditions to be followed by SRA  while granting the Letter of Intent to the Developer.  All the IAs are disposed off as above.  No costs.