Yash Developers vs Harihar Krupa Co-Operative Housing Society Limited & Ors.

226 – Rehabilitation of slum dwellers – Appellant was appointed as a developer by respondent no. 1 – However, development was prolonged for over two decades – Development agreement terminated by the statutory authority – Apex Grievance Redressal Committee (AGRC) – Validity of the said power exercised by the AGRC – Order of termination upheld by the High Court – Plea of the appellant that the delay in implementation of the project was in various phases between 2003 to 2011, 2011 to 2014 and 2014 to 2019 due to various reasons inter alia long-drawn litigation with a competing builder, delay in obtaining the environmental clearances or the delay due to non-cooperation of certain slum dwellers, in which the appellant had no role and was not at all responsible for: Held: Under s.13(2), Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) has the power to redevelop the project if it is satisfied that the development is not proceeding within the time specified – This power of SRA is coupled with a duty to ensure that the project is completed within time – The provision is a statutory incorporation of time integrity in the performance of the duty – SRA is accountable for the performance of this duty – The primary responsibility to implement s.13 and allied provisions and to monitor compliances of schemes and agreements vests with the CEO – If the actions of CEO are based on the directions of the SRA, then the SRA must equally bear the responsibility – A writ of mandamus would lie against the concerned authorities if they do not perform the statutory duty of ensuring that the project is completed within the time prescribed – Delay of 8 years in resolving disputes with a competing builder cannot be a justification under any circumstance – Appellant being a developer fully understands the process of obtaining environmental clearances while other sanctions and permissions are pending, and it was for him to make all the necessary arrangements – Non-cooperation of some of the members cannot be a ground for delaying the project from 2014 to 2019 – AGRC and High Court correctly held that the delay caused due to the sanction of the draft development plan for the construction of the road cannot be a justification for delaying the project from 2015 to 2019 – Justifications given by the appellant for delaying the project, rejected – No merit in the present appeal, costs imposed – Though the justifications for delay are rejected, but there was dereliction of the statutory duty of the SRA in ensuring that the project is completed within time – There was negligence on the part of CEO and the SRA and they are accountable for their actions. [Paras 13, 14.1, 24, 26, 27]

Constitution of India – Article 21 – Right to life – Slum Rehabilitation Scheme – Rehabilitation of slum dwellers: Held: Execution of the project under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme cannot be viewed as a real estate development project – There is a public purpose involved inextricably connected to the right to life of some of our brother and sister citizens living in pathetic conditions. [Para 27]

Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 – Performance audit of – Litigation under the Act, worrisome – Directions for comprehensive statutory audit issued – Problem with the statutory scheme w.r.t issues such as identification and declaration of land as a slum; identification of slum dwellers; selection of a developer; apportionment of the slum land between redevelopment area and sale area; obligation to provide transit accommodation for the slum dwellers pending redevelopment; issues of lack of independence and objectivity in the functioning of statutory authorities; effectiveness of statutory remedies; judicial review proceedings under Art. 226 cannot be a long-term solution: Held: The problems arising out of the statutory scheme and policy framework should have come under review by the State of Maharashtra – Assessment of the working of the statute to realise if its purpose and objective achieved or not is the implied duty of the executive government – Reviewing and assessing the implementation of a statute is an integral part of Rule of Law – It is in recognition of this obligation of the executive government that the constitutional courts have directed governments to carry performance audit of statutes – Role of judiciary elaborated – Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court requested to constitute a bench to initiate suo motu proceedings for reviewing the working of the statute to identify the cause of the problems indicated. [Para 35, 42] Judicial review – Directions for review and assessment of the implementation of a Statute – Justification:

Held: Constitutional courts are fully justified in giving such directions as they are in a unique position of perceiving the working of a statute while exercising judicial review, during which they could identify the fault-lines in the implementation of a statute. [Para 37]