The Bombay High Court has granted ad-interim relief by staying the operation of a slum rehabilitation declaration over land in Malad (East), holding that the decision-making process prima facie suffered from violation of principles of natural justice.
The writ petition challenged two orders one passed by the CEO of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) in 2018 declaring 1055.50 sq. metres as a slum rehabilitation area, and a 2024 order of the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) affirming the same.
The petitioners, claiming ownership over portions of the subject land, contended that they were denied access to crucial materials including the site inspection report, plans, and photographs relied upon by the authorities to justify the declaration. They argued that without such disclosure, they were deprived of a meaningful opportunity to object to the proposed action.
Accepting this contention at the ad-interim stage, the Court noted that the impugned orders themselves relied upon the very materials that were allegedly not furnished to the petitioners. It held that where such material forms the foundation of the decision, fairness demands its prior disclosure to affected parties.
The Court further observed that a declaration of land as a slum rehabilitation area has serious civil consequences, directly impacting proprietary rights, and therefore requires strict adherence to principles of natural justice. It found that the petitioners had prima facie demonstrated prejudice, particularly as they were unable to effectively respond to the proposed declaration without access to the underlying material.
Rejecting the respondents’ contention that no prejudice was caused, the Court held that denial of relevant documents impaired the petitioners’ ability to contest the existence of slum-like conditions. It also noted that the authorities failed to record any reasons for refusing disclosure of such material in the impugned orders.
In these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioners had made out a strong prima facie case, with balance of convenience in their favour and a likelihood of irreparable harm if relief was denied.
Accordingly, the Court stayed the operation and implementation of both the 2018 slum declaration and the 2024 appellate order, pending further hearing of the writ petition, and directed the respondents to file their replies within two weeks.
Appearances:
Mr. Vishal Kanade with Ms. Tanaya Patankar, Mr. Sagar Batavia i/b Mr. Angad N. Giri for the Petitioners.
Ms. Vaishali Chaudhari, Addl G.P. for Respondent no. 1.
Mr. Yogesh Vijay Patil for Respondent no. 2 – AGRC.
Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w Mr. Akshay Naidu and Nidhi Chauhan i/b Vishwanath Patil for Respondent no. 3 – SRA.
Mr. Sanjeevan Bhosle – Assistant Engineer SRA is present.
Mr. Dayanand Trimukhe – Sub Engineer SRA is present.
Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w Mani Thevar i/b Ganesh & Co. for Respondent no. 4
