Grievance Body Of Slum Rehabilitation Authority Cannot Review Its Earlier Order Under The Guise Of Speaking To Its Minutes: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held recently that the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) cannot review its own order in the guise of speaking to the minutes of the order.Justice Madhav J Jamdar quashed an Order passed by the AGRC while speaking to the minutes of its earlier order. AGRC, in the modified order, had directed the parties to register a different agreement than the one mentioned in the original order.“it is a settled legal proposition that unless the Statute/Rules so permit, a Review Application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi judicial Orders. What has been done by the AGRC is that under the guise of styling the Order as speaking to the minutes of Order passed on 28th June 2023, the Order is effectively reviewed”, the court held.One Sitara Anil Sharma challenged an Order passed by the AGRC. This Order, initially dated June 28, 2023, was subsequently modified by the AGRC through an Order dated September 15, 2023.The AGRC, on June 28, 2023, had directed the slum developer to pay applicable Transit Rent to the petitioner and to register an Agreement executed on April 20, 2022 for Permanent Alternate Accommodation (PAA) within ten working days. The developer filed an application for speaking to the minutes stating that the agreement executed on April 20, 2022 is not according to the Slum Redevelopment Scheme. Thus, a new agreement for Permanent Alternate Accommodation is required to be executed and registered, the developer contended.AGRC noted that the agreement dated April 20, 2022 pertains to the area from Sale Component of the builder and has nothing to do with SRA. Thus, AGRC cannot force the developer to register that agreement as it is a matter between the developer and the applicant. The PAA Agreement pertaining to the area of entitlement of the applicant as an eligible slum dweller is already executed on November 26, 2009, the AGRC observed.On September 15, 2023, AGRC modified the original order and deleted the words 'executed on 20.04.2022', directing the builder to register and execute the Agreement for Permanent Alternate Accommodation within ten working days.The court opined that the AGRC, while purporting to deal with an application for speaking to the minutes of the June 28, 2023 Order, effectively reviewed the said order, contrary to the statutory provisions under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.The court referred to the AGRC's reasoning and findings, which indicated a review of the earlier Order. The court noted that the AGRC had overlooked the settled legal position, stating that a review application is not maintainable unless expressly permitted by statute or rules.The court quashed and set aside the Order of the AGRC dated September 15, 2023, emphasizing that the review was undertaken without statutory jurisdiction. The court clarified that the developer had the option to challenge the original Order of June 28, 2023, through appropriate legal proceedings, but a review was impermissible.The court further clarified that its decision to quash the Order was solely based on the absence of statutory jurisdiction for review. All contentions on merits were expressly kept open, allowing the parties to pursue their claims and defences through proper legal channels.The Petitioner, through her counsel, expressed readiness to comply with the original Order of June 28, 2023, upon payment of applicable transit rent and execution of the specified agreement. This statement was accepted by the court as an undertaking, and further steps for possession were directed to be taken only upon compliance with the June 28, 2023 Order.Advocates Aniesh S Jadhav, Shyam K Singh and Pradeep Gaikwad represented the Petitioner. Advocate PH Kantharia represented AGRC. Advocate Sneha Dedhia represented the slum developer.Case no. – Writ Petition No. 15250 of 2023Case Title – Sitara Anil Sharma v. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra, Mumbai & Ors.Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Grievance Body Of Slum Rehabilitation Authority Cannot Review Its Earlier Order Under The Guise Of Speaking To Its Minutes: Bombay High Court

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

Grievance Body Of Slum Rehabilitation Authority Cannot Review Its Earlier Order Under The Guise Of Speaking To Its Minutes: Bombay High Court

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Amisha Shrivastava

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers