20 June 2025 Civil Writ Petition >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Property Law >> Personal Law  

In Om Vishwashanti CHS (Proposed), Through his Chief promoter, Mumbai & Another v/s Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Through Municipal Commissioner, Mumbai & Others., the Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the termination of a developer in a slum redevelopment project. The petition, brought by a slum co-operative housing society and a developer, sought to quash an order dated January 10, 2024, which terminated the developer, and to compel the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and other authorities to sanction their building proposal.

The court, after reviewing the submitted papers and hearing arguments, found the termination order of January 10, 2024, to be "well-structured and reasoned" and free from bias or perversity, noting that due process was followed in the developer's termination.

A key point of contention for the court was the maintainability of the petition itself. The learned advocate for the petitioners was unable to demonstrate any fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution that would allow either the slum society or the developer to bring such a petition.

The court further clarified that issues related to the planning, design, and structure of the building, including alleged deviations, are matters that fall squarely within the purview of the BMC and cannot be adjudicated under the High Court's writ jurisdiction. Importantly, the court emphasized that the choice and determination of a developer for a slum rehabilitation project is the prerogative of the BMC, in consultation with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), and not the slum society.

In a strong observation, the court stated that allowing "squatters or slum dwellers, who are ex facie illegal occupants and who have no lawful entitlement to the land in the first place," to dictate the choice of their developer and impose terms on the State would be an "emphatic negative." The court highlighted that slum colonies are often a direct result of the State's inaction.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the petition was merely a "guise filed by the developer himself under the cover of the slum dwellers" with the sole intention of ensuring his continued appointment. It was determined to be, in essence, a private dispute aimed at circumventing the appropriate legal remedy of filing a civil suit for contract termination.

Finding no justification to interfere with the respondents' decision, the High Court accordingly dismissed the petition.