Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed writ petitions filed by the developer and cooperative housing society engaged in a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRA) at Vile Parle, Mumbai. The Court quashed the notice issued by the Minister of State, Home (Rural), Housing and Co-operative Department acting on a complaint of a local MLA seeking cancellation of the developer’s Letter of Intent (LOI). It held that the Minister had no jurisdiction to interfere in an approved SRA scheme and emphasised that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) must independently discharge its statutory functions without yielding to extrajudicial or political pressure .
The Court directed the SRA and allied authorities to process the certified Annexure-II, issue the Commencement Certificate (CC), and ensure smooth implementation of the redevelopment scheme in accordance with law.
Facts
In 2020, the petitioner developer was appointed by a slum society for redevelopment of Final Plot No. 187 at Vile Parle under a slum scheme. The proposal, verified by MCGM, was accepted in February 2021 on the condition that slum dwellers occupying the adjoining DP Road be also accommodated as Project Affected Persons (PAPs).
After the issuance of the LOI (May 2022) and IOA (May 2022), the scheme faced continuous objections. The Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) initially quashed the LOI in 2022, but this was overturned by the High Court in April 2024. The Supreme Court later dismissed a challenge, recording the developer’s undertaking to rehabilitate 164 slum dwellers and 47 DP Road occupants.
Despite compliance—including rent payments, deposit of post-dated cheques, and submission of NOCs—SRA withheld the CC. Matters were complicated by complaints lodged by a local MLA supporting a rival developer. Acting on this, the Minister issued a notice in May 2025 to reconsider cancellation of the LOI, prompting the present writ petitions .
Issues
- Whether the Minister of State had jurisdiction to issue directions for cancellation of the LOI issued by SRA.
- Whether SRA’s continued refusal to issue CC despite compliance was lawful.
- Whether dissenting slum dwellers and intervenors excluded from the scheme were entitled to relief.
- Whether political interference could override statutory processes under the Slum Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that all statutory compliances were met, including accommodating PAPs, paying transit rent, and depositing cheques. They contended that SRA was legally bound to grant the CC within 60 days under Regulation 2.8 of DCPR 2034, and its failure amounted to dereliction.
They submitted that the Minister’s interference was wholly extrajudicial since all objections raised had been conclusively resolved in earlier writ proceedings and by the Supreme Court. The developer emphasised that repeated obstruction was orchestrated by a rival developer through political channels, stalling a scheme meant to uplift slum dwellers .
Respondent’s Arguments
The SRA denied political influence and justified its July 2025 letter seeking a fresh proposal, arguing it was necessitated by amalgamation of the DP Road plot with the main plot. It contended that Circular 144 required further compliance.
The MCGM submitted that it had already granted NOC in April 2025 and that the final Annexure-II was under preparation. Intervenors, representing 75 excluded slum dwellers, argued they were wrongly classified as PAPs despite being eligible and that the developer had violated its Supreme Court undertaking .
Analysis of the Law
The Court analysed provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, emphasising its welfare character. It held that:
- The SRA is the sole statutory authority empowered to sanction, monitor, and implement slum schemes.
- Regulation 2.8 of DCPR 2034 mandates issuance of NOC by land-owning authority within 60 days; failing which, deemed permission operates.
- The Minister had no supervisory jurisdiction to direct cancellation or stall an ongoing scheme.
The Court relied on the principle that statutory bodies must act independently without succumbing to political influence.
Precedent Analysis
The Court referred to and relied upon:
- Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa CHS (2024) 9 SCC 606 — Supreme Court mandated timely implementation of approved SRA schemes and directed authorities to avoid delays.
- Earlier Bombay High Court judgment (April 2024) — Quashed AGRC’s decision and reinstated the LOI, holding inclusion of DP Road slum dwellers as PAPs was a lawful pre-condition, not a defect.
- Supreme Court Order (May 2024) — Accepted developer’s undertaking to rehabilitate both 164 slum dwellers and 47 DP Road occupants, disposing of objections.
These precedents reinforced that the scheme stood conclusively validated and could not be reopened on the same grounds .
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the Minister’s May 2025 notice was extrajudicial interference, as the SRA alone had competence. It noted that all issues raised—fraud in obtaining consents, exclusion of PAPs, and adequacy of consents—had been resolved by earlier judgments and the Supreme Court.
It further observed that SRA’s refusal to issue CC despite deemed NOC under Regulation 2.8 was indefensible. The Court emphasised:
“Authorities must discharge their statutory obligations in accordance with law. Political interference cannot derail the object of the Slum Act, which is to provide better living conditions to slum dwellers.”
Conclusion
The High Court quashed the Minister’s notice dated 14.05.2025, restrained political and third-party interference, and directed SRA, MCGM, and other authorities to issue the certified Annexure-II and grant the CC within a time-bound period. The petitions were allowed, ensuring the developer’s scheme could proceed without obstruction .
Implications
This judgment is significant for slum redevelopment projects in Mumbai. It clarifies that Ministers or political representatives cannot interfere once statutory approvals are granted. It reinforces developers’ rights where obligations are fulfilled and ensures slum dwellers are not denied timely rehabilitation due to rivalries or political manoeuvring. The ruling strengthens certainty, transparency, and independence of statutory authorities in implementing welfare schemes.
FAQs
Q1. Can a Minister cancel or interfere with an approved SRA scheme?
No. The High Court held that only the SRA has jurisdiction; ministerial interference is extrajudicial and invalid.
Q2. What happens if MCGM does not issue an NOC within 60 days?
Under Regulation 2.8 of DCPR 2034, the NOC is deemed granted if not issued within 60 days .
Q3. Are slum dwellers on adjoining roads entitled to rehabilitation?
Yes. Courts have held that adjoining road occupants must be accommodated as PAPs where redevelopment of the main plot is inseparable from adjoining plots .
