Bombay HC takes action against developer for decade-long inaction in Kandivali SRA project

The Bombay High Court (HC) has declined to get involved in the decision to fire the developer for failing to implement practical redevelopment plans under the slum restoration program for over a decade. The Kandivali West-based Swapnapurti SRA Co-operative Society is at fault in this lawsuit. A developer was hired in 2011 to oversee the society's rebuilding process; however, for 10 years the developer did not take any concrete action to begin construction.

In light of this, the SRA CEO allowed the society the power to select a new developer of its choice in the event that the members provided the required approval. The order made clear that the new developer would be required to pay back the prior developer's fees if the society decides to choose another developer.

Questions Raised On Validity of Order:

The order passed by the SRA CEO on February 1, 2021, and AGRC dated July 25, 2022 regarding the society was challenged by the old developer in the court. In this petition, the validity of both the orders was being questioned. It was claimed in the petition that the said order is not in accordance with Section 13(2) of the Slum Act.

 At the same time, the SRA's attorney stated that the authority had taken into account all factors before issuing the aforementioned order. The society's representative, advocate Sushil Upadhyay, made the presentation. In view of the case's facts, Justice Madhav Jamdar stated that the new developer is perceived to have the support of the majority of society members. All of the slum people have left their houses. Additionally, the people have got rent of only two years against the property.

New Developer Is Doing Work In Timely Manner:

Justice Jamdar said that the new developer is taking effective steps to complete the redevelopment of this slum area on time. The interest of the old developer has been taken care of in the order of the SRA CEO, under which reimbursement of its actual expenses has been ordered on the basis of the valuer's report.

According to Article 226 of the Constitution, the privilege can only be invoked in cases when the public authority has abused its rights and neglected its obligations, as stated by Justice Jamdar while hearing this matter. It is believed that these rights will only be utilised to combat injustice. Interference is unnecessary in this particular circumstance. Making these remarks, Justice Jamdar rejected the developer's petition.