MHADA Appeal Reopened: Court Orders Fresh Hearing Amid Conflict of Interest.


02 January 2024 Property Law >> Personal Law  

This Writ Petition of M/s. S.K. Realty (formerly known as “Aum Developer”), Mumbai v/s State of Maharashtra (through Housing Department) Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others., was filed by the Developer under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order passed by the 2nd Appellate Authority (Housing Department) on 14.09.2022, which dismissed the Developer’s appeal against the rejection of their proposal regarding the eligibility of certain rooms as certified tenants. The rejection was made by the Vice President & CEO of MHADA in February 2019.

The Developer argued that the same person (Vice President & CEO of MHADA) had both rejected the application and passed the impugned order as the 2nd Appellate Authority, which created a conflict of interest. The Respondent (MHADA) admitted that both decisions were made by the same individual but contended that the Developer did not raise this issue during the second appeal hearing.


 

 

The court found merit in the Developer’s claim of a breach of natural justice and decided to quash the impugned order. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication by the 2nd Appellate Authority, with the condition that all contentions and documents from both sides be considered. The 2nd Appellate Authority was instructed to resolve the issue within four months and issue a reasoned order after hearing all parties.

Additionally, no coercive action was to be taken against the Developer regarding the ongoing inquiry until the appeal is decided. If the same authority continues to handle the appeal, the State Government was directed to take appropriate action to ensure impartiality.