Bombay High Court: Grievance Body Of Slum Rehabilitation Authority Cannot Review Its Earlier Order Under The Guise Of Speaking To Its Minutes

The Bombay High Court in the case Sitara Anil Sharma v. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra, Mumbai & Ors observed and has held that the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, AGRC of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, SRA cannot review its own order in the guise of speaking to the minutes of the order.
The bench headed by Justice Madhav J Jamdar in the case observed and has quashed an order passed by the AGRC while speaking to the minutes of it earlier order, wherein the court directed the parties to register a different agreement than the one mentioned in the original order.
The court held that it being the settled legal proposition that unless the Statute or Rules so permit, a Review Application is not maintainable in case of judicial or quasi-judicial Orders. Thus, what has been done by the AGRC is that under the guise of styling the Order as speaking to the minutes of Order passed on June 28, 2023.
Therefore, One Sitara Anil Sharma challenged an Order passed by the AGRC and the order dated June 28, 2023, was subsequently modified by the AGRC through an Order dated September 15, 2023.
It has been directed by the AGRC on June 28 that the slum developer to pay applicable Transit Rent to the petitioner and to register an Agreement executed on April 20, 2022 for Permanent Alternate Accommodation, PAA within ten working days.
However, an application is filed by the developer for speaking to the minutes stating that the agreement executed on April 20, 2022 is not according to the Slum Redevelopment Scheme. Thus, the new agreement is being required for the Permanent Alternate Accommodation is required to be executed and registered.
The AGRC in the case noted that the agreement dated 20.04.2022 which pertains to the area from Sale Component of the builder and has nothing to do with SRA and the AGRC cannot force the developer to register that agreement as it is a matter of between the developer and the applicant.
The court in the case observed that the AGRC, while purporting to deal with an application for speaking to the minutes of the June 28, 2023 Order which being contrary to the provisions under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
Further, it has been clarified by the court that its decision to quash the Order was solely based on the absence of statutory jurisdiction for review. Thus, all the contentions raised were merely based on merits were expressly kept open, wherein allowing the parties to pursue their claims and defences through proper legal channels.
The counsel, Advocates Aniesh S Jadhav, Shyam K Singh and Pradeep Gaikwad appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Advocate PH Kantharia represented AGRC.
The counsel, Advocate Sneha Dedhia represented the slum developer.

Bombay High Court:
Grievance Body Of Slum Rehabilitation Authority Cannot Review Its Earlier Order Under The Guise Of Speaking To Its Minutes
The Bombay High Court in the case Sitara Anil Sharma v. Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Bandra, Mumbai & Ors observed and has held that the Apex Grievance Redressal Committee, AGRC of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, SRA cannot review its own order in the guise of speaking to the minutes of the order.
The bench headed by Justice Madhav J Jamdar in the case observed and has quashed an order passed by the AGRC while speaking to the minutes of it earlier order, wherein the court directed the parties to register a different agreement than the one mentioned in the original order.
The court held that it being the settled legal proposition that unless the Statute or Rules so permit, a Review Application is not maintainable in case of judicial or quasi-judicial Orders. Thus, what has been done by the AGRC is that under the guise of styling the Order as speaking to the minutes of Order passed on June 28, 2023.
Therefore, One Sitara Anil Sharma challenged an Order passed by the AGRC and the order dated June 28, 2023, was subsequently modified by the AGRC through an Order dated September 15, 2023.
It has been directed by the AGRC on June 28 that the slum developer to pay applicable Transit Rent to the petitioner and to register an Agreement executed on April 20, 2022 for Permanent Alternate Accommodation, PAA within ten working days.
However, an application is filed by the developer for speaking to the minutes stating that the agreement executed on April 20, 2022 is not according to the Slum Redevelopment Scheme. Thus, the new agreement is being required for the Permanent Alternate Accommodation is required to be executed and registered.
The AGRC in the case noted that the agreement dated 20.04.2022 which pertains to the area from Sale Component of the builder and has nothing to do with SRA and the AGRC cannot force the developer to register that agreement as it is a matter of between the developer and the applicant.
The court in the case observed that the AGRC, while purporting to deal with an application for speaking to the minutes of the June 28, 2023 Order which being contrary to the provisions under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971.
Further, it has been clarified by the court that its decision to quash the Order was solely based on the absence of statutory jurisdiction for review. Thus, all the contentions raised were merely based on merits were expressly kept open, wherein allowing the parties to pursue their claims and defences through proper legal channels.
The counsel, Advocates Aniesh S Jadhav, Shyam K Singh and Pradeep Gaikwad appeared for the Petitioner.
The counsel, Advocate PH Kantharia represented AGRC.
The counsel, Advocate Sneha Dedhia represented the slum developer.