RAMCHANDRA MAHADEV JAGPAT Vs. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on November 07,2006

RAMCHANDRA MAHADEV JAGPAT,SIGTIA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,RAM CHANDRA MAHADEV JAGTAP Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

LOKHANDWALA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2011-1-35] [REFERRED TO]
S RAJA NADAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-1-103] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH BHAGWATPRASAD HUF VS. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA LTD. [LAWS(GJH)-2014-1-98] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTIBEN N. PATEL AND ORS. VS. ARVINDBHAI R. PATEL AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2016-4-169] [REFERRED TO]
SREI EQUIPMENT AND FINANCE PVT. LTD. VS. KHYODA APIK AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2016-5-113] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.R.LAKSHMANAN, J. - (1.)LA. No.1 for impleadment is ordered on 10.07.2006. M/s. Sigtia Construction Company Private Limited was impleaded as respondent No. 5 in Special Leave Petition No. 10281 of 2006.
(2.)LA. No. 3 of 2006 was filed by the applicant-M/s. Sigtia Construction Company Private Limited to recall the order dated 27.06.2006 passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition No. 10281 of 2006. The order passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition No. 10281/2006, dated 27.06.2006 reads thus : JUDGEMENT_251_AIR(SCW)_2007Html1.htm
The reasons for recalling the order as stated in I.A.No. 3 of 2006 are as under :-

The applicant Sigtia Construction Company Private Limited (in short "Sigtia"} was appointed as developer by the Vile Parle Prem Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited (hereinafter called "Society" the respondent No.2). The applicant who is directly affected by an order appointing M/s. Keya Developers and Construction Private Limited (in short "Keya") as Developer was not made a party respondent in Writ Petition No. 1277 of 2006 and also in the Special Leave Petition No. 10281 of 2006 although the applicant was a party in the previous proceedings, namely. Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004 which was filed before the High Court and the Special Leave Petition No. 11318 of 2005 and 19848 of 2005. According to the applicant, the respondents in the Special Leave Petition No. 10281 are not contesting respondents and particularly respondent No. 1-the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (in short "SRA") had taken a stand before this Court in earlier round in Special Leave Petition No. 19848 of 2005 by way of an affidavit that they will abide by any orders which may be passed by this Court. Nobody appeared for Bombay Municipal Corporation on 27.06.2006. Therefore, there was nobody present who could have opposed the passing of the order. The applicant, against whom allegations were made, was not made a party to the special leave petition. It was the duty of the petitioner in the special leave petition, to make the applicant-Sigtia, who is directly affected, a party to the special leave petition. However, instead of doing that this Court was given the impression that all the affected parties were before this Court.

Mr. Arun Jaitley, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant-Sigtia made the following submissions as to why the order dated 27.06.2006 in Special Leave Petition No. 10281 of 2006 should be recalled.

a) M/s. Sigtia was appointed as developers in respect of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme of the property in the Suburban district of Mumbai at Ma Tank by the gen- eral body of the proposed Prem Nagar Housing Society;

b) Sigtia submitted the proposal for re-development of the slum known as Prem Nagar situated at Vile Parle (W), CTS No. 439-442; 446-448; 451-1-15, 452, 453, 454A under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on 11.09.2002 with the consent of 1054 hutment dwellers;

c) In all 1054 individual agreements and consent affidavits were filed by slum wellers in favour of Sigtia before the SRA and approved by the Additional Collector (Encroachment) by its order dated 23.01.2003;

d) When the applicant was about to get the Letter of Intent, the Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004 was filed on 31.03.2004 before the High Court of Bombay by Mr. Nazir Khan Yakub Khan and 8 other slum dwellers challenging the appointment of Sigtia as developer to undertake the re-development of the slum area on the ground that Sigtia was having neither technical expertise nor financial capability to complete the project.

e) In the above writ petition, the Chief Promoter of the Society filed two affidavits before the High Court dated 07.06.2004 and 29.06.2004 expressing confidence and faith in the technical and financial capability of Sigtia to execute the project. The Chief Executive Officer, SRA also filed additional affidavit on 11.02.2005 supporting the scheme in totality.

f) The High Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004 on 11.03.2005 directed the SRA to put additional conditions as follows :- a. Obtaining security deposit of Rs. 2.5 crbres from the developer to safeguard the interests of the Slum Dwellers. b. Supervision by the Senior Engineer of Bombay Municipal Corporation at the cost of the developer. c. No construction of sale component till all the slum dwellers are rehabilitated in the new buildings, and d. Undertaking/ indemnity from the developer for fulfilling the above three conditions.

(3.)OUT of 9 petitioners in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004, one Nazir Khan Yakub Khan alone filed a Special Leave Petition No. 11318 of 2005 challenging the order of the High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004. Sigtia was impleaded in the special leave petition as Respondent No.7. The Special Leave Petition was withdrawn by the petitioner on 26.09.2005. 4 other petitioners out of original 9 filed Special Leave Petition No. 19848 of 2005 challenging the order in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004 and obtained interim stay on 19.09.2005 from this Court. Due to the abovesaid stay order, Sigtia could not take any further steps towards the implementation of the project. The stay order continued till 13.04.2006 on which date this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition No. 19848 of 2005 as withdrawn.
During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition No. 19848 of 2005, counsel of Prem Nagar Co-operative Housing Society gave notices dated 26.04.2005 and 06.06.2005 purporting to revoke the development agreement and the Power of Attorney executed in favour of Sigtia. By letter dated 15.06.2005, Sigtia gave reply questioning the authority of the persons purporting to terminate and revoke the said development agreement and Power of Attorney.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.