MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has prohibited the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and BMC from responding to complaints and interference from BJP MLA Parag Alavani and a competing developer regarding a slum rehabilitation project in Vile Parle (E), as reported by Rosy Sequeira.
The bench, consisting of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Arif Doctor, remarked, “It reflects poorly when any statutory authority abandons its statutory responsibilities due to outside interference, which is evidently what the respondent 2 (SRA) appears to have done,” during their ruling last Friday.
In November 2020, the Shree Gurukrupa CHS, a slum-dwellers’ society, appointed Sateri Builders for redevelopment. The SRA approved the developer’s proposal but withheld the commencement certificate due to protests from some residents, with the MLA becoming involved this year.
The High Court has restrained the SRA and BMC from allowing interference from BJP MLA Parag Alavani and a rival developer concerning the slum rehabilitation scheme. The Shree Gurukrupa SRA CHS society engaged Sateri Builders and Developers for redevelopment on BMC land, which was accepted by the SRA on the condition that it included occupants from the adjacent DP Road and Dayaldas Road. Following the issuance of development permissions, dissenting slum-dwellers challenged it. The apex grievance redressal committee (AGRC) annulled the permissions, but the HC reversed this decision, with the SC later upholding the HC’s order.
Despite the ruling, the dissenting slum-dwellers refused to vacate their homes, leading the SRA to withhold the commencement certificate for non-compliance with various requirements. The non-compliant slum-dwellers contested the deputy collector’s eviction order issued on February 25. On May 13, Alavani lodged a complaint with the housing minister to revoke the letter of intent, prompting the minister to issue a notice to the SRA and its CEO to hold a meeting the following day. The AGRC supported the eviction of nine slum-dwellers on May 23, but the SRA did not implement the eviction order, leading the CHS and Sateri to approach the HC.
On July 10, advocate general Birendra Saraf clarified that the minister had merely convened a meeting without issuing any directives or decisions. Senior advocate Anil Sakhare, representing Sateri, noted that despite this clarification, the SRA, on July 31, requested that his client submit a new proposal for the DP road plot already included in the scheme. Sakhare argued that “the redevelopment was being systematically hindered at every stage due to Alavani’s interference,” who was acting on behalf of Pagrani Universal Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. Advocates Mayur Khandeparkar and Rishi Bhatt, representing the CHS, stated that Alavani had communicated objections to the BMC and SRA about granting permission, supporting Pagrani’s attempt to take over the scheme. The judges highlighted that Pagrani and Alavani had not denied the petitioners’ claims, adding that the interference was evident from the available evidence.
The judges emphasized that the Slums Act aims to improve conditions for those living in slums and regrettably observed that “in case after case,” authorities, specifically the SRA, seem to disregard their responsibilities and continue to prioritize developers’ interests. The authorities had initially accepted Sateri’s redevelopment proposal and granted permissions that were later validated by the HC and confirmed by the SC. Therefore, the request for a fresh proposal on July 31 was deemed “entirely unjustified.”
