Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, holding that the slum society and the developer had no enforceable right to challenge the order of the Municipal Corporation terminating the developer. The Court strongly observed, “Slum colonies are creations of slumlords and a direct result of the State’s inaction.” It held that the matter was a private contractual dispute and could not be entertained in writ jurisdiction.
Facts
The petitioners—a proposed slum society and a developer—challenged the order dated 10th January 2024 issued by the Municipal Corporation, which terminated the developer’s appointment. The petition sought quashing of the said order and a direction to the Municipal Corporation to sanction a building proposal submitted on 8th January 2024, thereby allowing the developer to commence and complete the construction as per that proposal.
The petitioners argued that the proposal was compliant with the development plan and should have been approved by the Municipal Corporation. They contended that the termination order lacked justification and procedural fairness.
Issues
- Whether the slum society or developer had any enforceable right under Article 14 of the Constitution to challenge the termination of the developer?
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 could be entertained in a matter primarily arising from private disputes related to development contracts?
- Whether the Municipal Corporation was justified in terminating the appointment of the developer?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners contended that the Municipal Corporation wrongfully terminated the appointment of the developer without justification. They argued that the building proposal submitted on 8th January 2024 was in line with planning norms and should have been sanctioned. They claimed that their right to development was being impeded by arbitrary decision-making.
Respondent’s Arguments
The Municipal Corporation argued that due process was followed before terminating the developer and that the decision was reasoned and lawful. It was submitted that the petitioners had no legal right under Article 14 to file a writ petition as the dispute was essentially contractual. It was further argued that the writ was a proxy litigation filed by the developer to prolong his appointment, bypassing the proper civil remedy.
Analysis of the Law
The Court clarified that under Article 226, it could not adjudicate upon private disputes, especially those involving complex questions of fact and interpretation of development agreements. It observed that the matter did not involve any public law element justifying writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the power to appoint or terminate a developer under slum rehabilitation schemes lies with the Municipal Corporation and Slum Rehabilitation Authority, and not with the slum dwellers.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to the following precedents:
- Reverend Father Peter Paul Fernandes v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1991 Bom 445 – Held that slum encroachments are a result of governmental inaction.
- Abdul Majid Vakil Ahmad Patvekari v. Slum Rehabilitation Authority, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 13719 – Reaffirmed the limited rights of slum dwellers under SRA schemes.
- Abdul Aziz v. AGRC, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 744 – Clarified that encroachers cannot dictate terms to the state.
- Bishop John Rodrigues v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1632 – Recognized the state’s responsibility in addressing slum proliferation.
These precedents supported the Court’s view that squatters or slum occupants could not assert developer selection rights against the State.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the petition was not maintainable, noting that:
- The termination order was well-reasoned and based on procedural compliance.
- The dispute was private in nature and ought to be resolved through a civil suit.
- The writ was effectively filed by the developer using the society as a front, to retain his appointment.
- No constitutional right under Article 14 or otherwise had been infringed.
- The petitioners were “illegal occupants” with no legal entitlement to choose their developer or dictate construction terms to the authorities.
It held that entertaining such petitions would set a bad precedent and allow squatters to bypass state decisions on slum redevelopment.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the Municipal Corporation’s order and dismissed the writ petition. It held that the petition was a misuse of the writ jurisdiction to resolve a contractual dispute and stated emphatically:
“Would we be justified in permitting these squatters, who are ex facie illegal occupants, to dictate the choice of their developer? The answer is an emphatic negative.”
Implications
- Reaffirms that slum redevelopment disputes involving private parties must be resolved through civil suits, not writ petitions.
- Emphasizes the limited rights of slum dwellers in choosing or retaining a developer under state-administered redevelopment schemes.
- Highlights the judiciary’s unwillingness to interfere in technical planning and development matters governed by local authorities.
FAQs
1. Can slum societies file writ petitions to challenge developer termination?
No. The High Court held that slum societies have no legal right to select or retain a developer and cannot invoke Article 226 for private contractual disputes.
2. What remedy is available for a developer removed from a slum rehabilitation project?
The appropriate remedy is to file a civil suit for wrongful termination of contract, not a writ petition under constitutional law.
3. Can squatters dictate the terms of redevelopment to the government?
No. The Court held that squatters or illegal occupants cannot impose conditions on the State regarding developer choice or project terms.
