BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE MUMBAI APPEAL NO.

OF 2011

NEW HAJI KASAM CHAWL REHVASHI SANGH & OTHERS VERSUS NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD RESPONDENT APPELLANT

SYNOPSIS Sr. # DATE 1. EVENT

The Appellant No. 1 is a trust registered under Bombay Public Trust Act and other Appellants are its members. Appellants and the other occupants/tenants are residents of chawls known as New Haji Kasam Chawl situate at Curry road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. The Chawls are over 100 years old and presently in a very dilapidated condition.

2.

The Respondent is landlords and developers had initially undertaken the development work under Regulation 33(7) and later on changed to Regulation 33(9)

3. 17.4.2007

Respondent and Appellant No. 1 entered into Redevelopment Agreements whereby Respondent agreed to give 225+75 sq. ft carpet area flats to the residents of chawl nos. 59, 60, 60A by construction

ground + 7 storey building and for the other occupants of other chawls flats of 425 sq. ft in ground + 17 storey buildings. As provided in clause 17 of both the said agreements, it was agreed that if before starting construction further area is made available due to change in Government policy the benefits will be given to the members of the occupants/tenants. 4. One of the IOD condition as that the agreements with the existing tenants along with the plans would be submitted before CC for plinth level. Further consent letters from existing tenants for proposed addition/alterations in their tenements will be submitted before the CC. 5. The Respondent has not entered into agreements with all the occupants. Consent of all occupants was not obtained before changing the plans from Regulation 33(7) to 33(9). Furthermore after change in Government Policy under cluster development, the Respondent is now entitled to enhanced FSI of 4 than FSI of 2.5 as per earlier policy. However, the Respondent has not given any benefit to the occupants/tenants. The Plans were surreptitiously amended and CC up to 23 floors were got sanctioned without first submitting individual agreements and consents of individual occupants, thus depriving the occupants/tenants any opportunity to bargain benefits after changed policy as agreed under Redevelopment Agreements. The authorities had insisted the Respondent to comply with above conditions of CC which were required to be completed

before CC for plinth level, however, surprisingly the Respondent has succeeded in obtaining CC up to 23 floors and has completed rehab building

surreptitiously. The plans from original ground + 7 storey and ground + 18 storey building consensus are of

surreptitiously

changed

without

occupants/tenants and contrary to the terms of the aforesaid two Redevelopment agreements. 6. 28/11/2010 The Appellants by their Advocate addressed various letters to concerned authorities apprising them of the above illegalities and breaches of terms of

Redevelopment agreements, but nothing was done nor are Appellants allowed any opportunity to address their greviences. 7. Under the conditions of redevelopment the Respondent is required to carry out repairs to the existing chawls as they are in dilapidated condition. 8. 24/02/2011 In the night intervening 24th and 25th February 2011 the slab of the roof of Appellant No. 6 residing at Room No. 64, building No. 60A herein fell down. Fortunately enough no casualty was caused to the inmates. 9. The said Appellant therefore through their Advocates M/s V. R. Tripathi & Associates caused a letter dated 28th

February 2011 addressed to the various authorities urging them to call upon the Respondent to carry out urgent structural repairs to the said chawl to avoid

such mishaps in future. Photographs of the said ceiling were also forwarded to each of the authorities named therein. However, the said authorities again turned deaf ears to the requests of the Appellants and willfully neglected to do perform their statutory duties enshrined upon them for reasons best known to them. 10. The Appellants were therefore constrained to file Writ Petition before this Honble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2011 urging this Honourable Court to issue Writ of Certiorari or such order and direction against the concerned authorities namely MCGM, MBRRB,

MHADA (the Respondents No. 1 to 3 therein) directing them to issue stop work notice prohibiting the Respondent herein (Respondent No. 4 therein) from carrying out any further construction work, for issuing Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent herein to forthwith carry out repairs to the existing chawls and for other consequential reliefs as more particularly set out therein. 11. 29/08/2011 The said Writ Petition came up for hearing before the Division Bench of Their Lordships Mr. Justice P. B. Majmudar and Mr. Justice R.M.Savant. By order dated 29th August 2011 their Lordships were pleased to observe that in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Honourable Court, the Appellants are required to approach the High Power Committee and therefore this Honble court could not go into these aspects in a

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships were however pleased to observe that since MHADA has already granted NOC to Respondent No. 4 (i.e. the Respondent herein), it is the obligation of the Respondent No. 4 to maintain the existing premises where the Appellants are presently staying, Respondent No. 4 shall therefore maintain the said building in proper condition and, if required, Respondent No. 4 may carry out

appropriate repairs so that the occupants may not suffer hardship. Such repairs may be carried out immediately so that building may not collapse and no untoward incident happens and the same may be completed expeditiously and in any case within a period of two months from today... The said writ Petition came to be disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 12. 06/10/2011 When the Respondent did show any signs of their intention to carry out urgent repairs to the dilapidated chawls, the Appellants through their Advocate M/s V. R. Tripathi & Associates addressed a letter dated 6th October 2011 interalia calling upon the Respondent to carry out repairs to the said buildings and also warned them that if they fail to do so the Appellants would be constrained to file Contempt proceedings against them. However, the said letter was ignored by the Respondent in utter disregard to the directions given by this Honble Court.

13. 21/11/2011

The Respondent by their letter dated 21st November 2011 addressed to the Secretary of the Appellant No. 1 informed the Appellant that as per MCGM Hydraulic Engineer approval they were commencing the work of laying 6 dia Ductile pipe and sought co-operation of the tenants/occupants of the said chawls. The Appellants states that the work of laying ductile pipes involved excavation of land in close proximity to and also beneath the structures of the Appellants and other tenants/occupants of the said property. The structures of the Appellants and other

tenants/occupants of the said property are over 100 years old and are presently in dilapidated condition and cannot bear the vibrations caused by the excavation process for proposed work of the

Respondent. In most certainty, the work proposed to be carried out by the respondent without carrying out structural repairs to the structures of the Appellants and other tenants/occupants may cause further deterioration structures and it is likely that the structures may collapse causes serious threats to the lives and limbs of the tenants/occupants of the said chawls. 14. 22/11/2011 The Appellants therefore by their Advocates letter dated 22nd November 2011 called upon the

respondent to first comply with the orders and directions passed by Division Bench of this

Honourable Court and that unless the order is

properly complied with the Respondent cannot carry out any further development work on the said premises to prevent any untoward incidents. 15. 28/11/2011 Appellants states that on 28th November 2011, the Senior Inspector of Police of Kalachowkie Police station issued a notice purportedly under Section 149 of the Criminal Procedure Code, informing the Appellants that the Respondent have made an application to their Police station to provide police protection for carrying out their proposed work at the said properties and that the Appellants by the said Notice were called upon to maintain peace and order and allow the Respondent to carry out their work peacefully or else the Secretary of the Appellant No. 1 would be held responsible for any untoward incidents. Thus the Respondent sought to intimidate and pressurize the Appellants to succumb to their whims in their zeal to high handedly carry out the proposed work on the said property. 16. The Appellants were therefore constrained to file Contempt Petition before the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Mumbai for willful contempt and disobedience of the order dated 29/8/2011 by the Respondent being Contempt Petition No. _______ of 2011.

BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE APPEAL NO. OF 2011

NEW HAJI KASAM CHAWL REHVASHI SANGH & OTHERS VERSUS NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD RESPONDENT APPELLANT

INDEX SR. # DATE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 28/11/2010 PARTICULARS SYNOPSIS PETITION VAKALATNAMA MEMORANDUM OF ADDRESS LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBIT A Letter by Mr. Tripathi to Authorities 7. 01/01/2011 EXHIBIT B Letter by Mr. Tripathi to Authorities PAGE #

SR. # DATE

PARTICULARS

PAGE #

8.

28/02/2011

EXHIBIT C Letter by Mr. Tripathi to Authorities

9.

29/08/2011

EXHIBIT D Order of this Honble Court

10.

06/10/2011

EXHIBIT E Letter by Mr. Tripathi to Respondent

11.

21/11/2011

EXHIBIT F Letter by Respondent to Appellants

12.

22/11/2011

EXHIBIT G Letter by Adv. Raju Korde to Respondents

13.

EXHIBIT H Power of Attorney

14.

EXHIBIT I Authorisation letter

BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE APPEAL NO. OF 2011

IN

THE

MATTER of the

OF

Development

property

bearing C. S No. 71(P), 72, 77, 213/74 and 214/74 at Islam Mill Compound, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. And IN THE MATTER OF

Development Control Regulation 1999. And IN THE MATTER OF

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1971.

1. NEW HAJI KASAM CHAWL RAHIVASHI

SANGH, a Registered Trust constituted under the ) Provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 )

having office at Haji Kasam Chawl, Dr. Babasaheb) Ambedkar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. )

2. SAKHARAM ARJUN GHADIGAONKAR

An Adult, inhabitant of Mumbai age about 80 years) Occ: Service )

3. VIKAS BALKRISHNA HIRLEKAR An adult, inhabitant of Mumbai, age about 48 Years, Occ Service

) ) )

4. MOHAN DHONDU SAWANT An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 41 Years, Occ. Service

) ) )

5. VASUDEO PUNDLIK SAWANT An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 62 Years Occ. Service

) ) )

6. RAJESH SHASHIKANT HIRLEKAR An adult, inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 44 Years, Occ. Service

) ) )

7. RAMESH GANPAT PADVE

An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 52 yrs. ) Occ. Service 8. MRS. SUKHI PUKHRAJ RATHOD ) )

An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 60 yrs. ) Occ. Service )

9. PUKHRAJ INDAJI RATHOD

An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 52 yrs. ) Occ. Service All 2 to 9 having their address at New Haji Kasam Chawl, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-12. ) ) ) APPELLANTS

VERSUS

1. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF

GREATER MUMBAI, a statutory body having ) office at Mahapalika Marg, Mahapalika Bhavan,) Mumbai-400001 2. THE MUMBAI BUILDING REPAIR AND )

RECONSTRUCTION BOARD, a statutory body) having office at Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (E)

Mumbai-400051. 3. MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AREA

) )

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a statutory body) Constituted under Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1971 having its office At Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. 4. M/S NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. A private limited Company registered under Provisions of Indian Companies Act 1956 ) ) ) ) ) ) )

having office at 101-B, Mittal Court, 10th Floor, ) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400032. ) RESPONDENTS

To, THE HONOURABLE PRESIDENT AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE

HUMBLE PETITION OF THE APPELLANTS ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH AS UNDER:

1. The Appellant No. 1 is a trust registered under the Bombay Public

Trust Act, 1950 having its registered office at New Haji Kasam Chawl, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. The Appellants 2 to 9 are residents of said New Haji Kasam Chawl and are members of the Appellant No. 1. 2. The Respondent No. 1 is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, a statutory body constituted under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act 1888 having its office as given in the title.
3. The Respondent No. 2 is a Mumbai Building Repair and

Reconstruction Board, is a statutory body constituted under the provisions of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act 1971 having its office at Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051.
4. The Respondent No. 3 is Maharashtra Housing and Area

Development Authority, a statutory body constituted under Maharashtra Housing and area Development Act, 1971 having its office at Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051.
5. The Respondent No. 4 is a private limited company incorporated

under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office as given in the title. The Respondent No. 4 claims to be owner and developer in respect of the property situate at Islam Mill Compound, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. The Respondent No. 4 has under taken the development of the said property, where the present Appellants and other resident members of the Appellant No. 1 resides, under D. C Regulations, 1999.

6. Brief facts of and pertaining to and culminating in the present petition are as under:
(i)

Appellants states that the property known as Haji Kasam Chawls consists of chawls Nos. 59, 60 and 60 A and Chawls No. 364 A, 364 B, 368 A & B and the Chawl Nos. 1 and 2 which are situate on the plots of land forming part of C.S No. 71 (P), 72, 77, 213/74 and 214/74 at Islam Mill Compound, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012.

(ii)

There are about 172 residential premises including 9 shops occupied by various persons on tenancy basis in chawl Nos. 59, 60 and 60A. About 60 occupants out of occupants/tenants of said chawl no. 59, 60 and 60A aggrieved by the illegalities committed by the Respondent No. 4 have decided to support the present Petitioners. The list of occupants/tenants of said chawl nos. 59, 60 and 60A supporting the present appeal is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. The Respondent No. 4 has not entered into Agreement for alternate premises with the occupants/tenants who are supporting the present appeal and mentioned in Exhibit A hereto.

(iii)

Appellants state that in chawl nos. 364 A, 364B, 368 A & B and Chawl Nos. 1 and 2 there are about 386 premises out of which 22 are shops and remaining are residential premises. About 216

occupants/tenants out of 386 units have supported the present appeal. The Respondent No. 4 has not

executed agreements for alternate premises with the occupants/tenants supporting the present appeal as per list annexed hereto as Exhibit B
(iv)

Pursuant to various meetings and negotiations held between the Appellant No. 1 trust and its members on one hand and the Respondent No. 4 herein, a final meeting was called on 19th April 2001 wherein various representations were made by the Respondent. An agreement was arrived at between the Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 4 based on representations and assurances given by Respondent No. 4 that they shall develop the said property under Regulation 33(7) and/or 33(9) and each of the occupants/tenants would be provided alternate premises in lieu of their existing premises. Respondent No. 4 further assured that for the occupants of the chawl Nos, 59, 60 and 60A, the Respondent would construct rehab building of ground plus 7 floor and for the other chawls the construction would be of ground plus 18 floors. The Respondent No. 4 further agreed that the residents of chawl nos. 59, 60 and 60A would be given alternate premises of 225 + 75 sq. ft. carpet area in the 7 storey building, while the occupants of other chawls would be given premises of 425 sq. ft. carpet area. For future maintenance of said buildings corpus fund of Rs. 25,000/- for each of the occupants was also agreed to be provided by the Respondent No. 4.

(v)

The most important and core term of agreement arrived at between the parties was that if prior to sanction of plan and before the construction of rehab building started, in future if any beneficial declaration and enforcement about area is made by Government Policy or by MHADA then such benefits shall be given to the tenants/occupants. Based on the aforesaid representations and assurances given by the

Respondent No. 4 to the occupants/tenants of the said chawls, the Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 4 entered into and executed Redevelopment

Agreement dated 19th April 2007 in respect of chawls Nos. 59, 60 & 60 A. Likewise Redevelopment Agreement dated 5th June 2007 was executed between the Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 4 in respect of tenants/occupants/legal possessors/users of Building Nos. (6A) 368/386, (10/18) 346/364, 364A, 364B, 368A and 368B. The covenant regarding future benefits in terms of FSI/area is incorporated in clause 17 respectively of both the aforesaid Redevelopment Agreement. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit C is a copy of Redevelopment Agreement dated 19 th April 2007 in respect of chawl Nos. 59, 60 & 60A. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit D is a copy of said Redevelopment Agreement dated 5th June 2007 in respect of Building Nos. (6A) 368/386, (10/18) 346/364, 364A, 364B, 368A and 368B.

(vi)

Appellant states that recently the occupants of the said chawls noticed that the rehab buildings which were to be constructed of ground plus 7 floors and ground plus 18 floors were not under construction. On enquiry it was revealed to the occupants that originally the proposal was approved for the

construction of five rehab buildings. However, without obtaining consent of the occupants for material deviation from the representations and assurances given by the Respondent No. 4 at the time of entering into aforesaid Redevelopment agreements dated 19/4/2007 and 5/6/2007, the Respondent No. 4 got the proposal amended whereby the redevelopment under Regulation 33(7) was dropped and construction under Regulation 33(9) was got approved in view of the changed policy of the Government to grant FSI of 4 in respect of clustered development. Furthermore, the Respondent No. 4 surreptitiously got the plans modified proposing single rehab building of 23 floors with seven wings A to G instead of proposal to construct ground floor plus 7 and ground plus 17 storey buildings as agreed and recorded in both the aforesaid Redevelopment Agreements dated

19/4/2007 and 5/6/2007. All this was done while the Respondent No. 4 has not submitted consent of the occupants/tenants of the said chawls and without entering into agreements for alternate premises as is mandatory and was insisted upon by authorities as

condition precedent to CC up to plinth level as more particularly narrated hereinafter.

(vii)

Since, despite repeated requests the Respondent No. 4 failed to furnish any information regarding the nature of construction carried on by them, the Appellant No. 1 made application to Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai under Right to Information Act and obtained copies of LOI, IOD, CC and other relevant documents, it became manifest from the said documents that one of the condition of granting permission to construct rehab building was that without consent of occupants/tenants there would not be any change in the original sanctioned plans. However, without consent of the occupants the Respondent got the redevelopment plan changed from Regulation 33(7) to Regulation 33(9). The other condition imposed and as insisted by authorities from time to time as apparent from the compliance report of conditions of LOI and IOD on record of the Corporation was that the Respondent No. 4 would submit to the Municipal Corporation registered agreement with each of the occupant. However, till date the Respondent No. 4 have failed to enter into registered agreements with the occupants and are therefore not submitted to the Municipal Corporation. Here it is pertinent that the Compliance reports of MCGM dated 10th March 2010, 13th July 2010 and 20th July 2010 categorically mentions that the conditions of

issuing IOD (i) that the agreement with the existing tenant along with plans and (ii) That the consent letter from the existing tenants for the proposed additions and alterations in their tenements to be submitted to MCGM and to be complied by the Respondent No. 4 before commencement of work up to plinth level are shown as not complied with and that the said conditions are till date not complied with by the Respondent No. 4. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibits E, F and G respectively are copies of said compliance report of Respondent No. ____ dated 10th March 2010, 13th July 2010 and 20th July 2010. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit H collectively are copies of LOI, CC and other documents received by the Appellants under Right to Information Act. Surprisingly enough however, the MCGM has from time to time sanctioned and issued Commencement certificates from plinth level up to 23 floors in respect of rehab building within short span of less than 5 months without insisting compliance of both the aforesaid conditions. Thus the Respondent No. 4 managed to get the sanctioned plans amended from time to time, particularly from development under Regulation 33(7) to 33(9) without concurrence or obtaining consent of the occupants. This has seriously prejudiced the rights of the

occupants/tenants in as much as the Respondent No. 4 has blatantly breached the core covenants of the aforesaid Redevelopment agreements dated

19/4/2007 and 5/62007. The Respondent No. 4 has in blatant breach of the covenants of the said

Redevelopment agreements and contrary to the representations and assurances given by them to the Appellant No. 1 Trust and occupants/tenants

members of the Appellant No. 1 has surreptitiously usurped the benefits of the change in government policy under regulation 33 (9) rather than giving benefits of the same to the occupants/tenants.
(viii)

The Respondent No. 4, although, as developer is statutorily bound to form and register the Society of Occupants under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 and the rules framed therein, till date has not formed and registered the society or taken any initiative on that behalf and have illegally carried out development work.

(ix)

When these along with various other breaches and illegalities committed by the Respondent No. 4 came to light, the Appellant No. 1 sought to seek their redressal by appraising the aforesaid facts to all the concerned authorities i.e. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Assistant Municipal Commissioner and Executive Engineer of Building Proposal Department E ward of MCGM by their Advocates letter dated 28th November 2010. The Appellants also brought to the notice of the said authorities the existing condition of their structures which are over 100 years old are presently in a

dilapidated condition and urged them to require the Respondent to carry out urgent repairs to the existing chawls. By the said letter Appellants also brought to the notice of the Respondents 1 to 3 that without obtaining consent from the occupants/tenants and without passing on benefits of changed policy as agreed, the Respondent No. 4 was constructing building of ground plus 23 storey. The Appellants also brought to the knowledge of the said authorities that that the Respondent No. 4 has executed and therefore not submitted registered agreements with all occupants to the concerned authorities. Even consent of the occupants have not been obtained by the Respondent No. 4 while making application to amend the plans. The Appellants demanded additional benefit pursuant to increase in FSI due to change in policy granted to the Respondent No. 4. Appellants demanded 400 sq. feet carpet area in new building for each of the occupants in chawls nos. 59, 60 and 60A and 500 sq. feet carpet area for occupants/tenants of the remaining buildings. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit I is a copy of said letter dated 28 th November 2010 addressed by Advocate M/S. V. R. Tripathi & Associates.
(x)

The Appellants state that despite the aforesaid facts being brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, when the said letter addressed by the Advocate for the Appellants failed to elicit any

response whatsoever, neither were the Appellants given any audience to their grievances by giving them an opportunity of personal hearing nor were any steps taken by them to inquire in the matter, the Appellants were constrained to cause to be addressed another letter dated 1st January 2011 to the said authorities once again reiterating their grievances. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit J is a copy of said letter dated 1/1/2011. (xi) The Appellants state that Respondents 1 to 3 being statutory bodies were required to and are saddled with statutory duty to investigate on the complaints regarding illegalities committed by Respondent No. 4, however despite having knowledge of breaches committed by the Respondent No. 4 the said authorities have not taken any effective steps against the Respondent No. 4 to protect the interest of the occupants/tenants are now left in lurch.
(xii)

Appellants states that in the night intervening 24th and 25th February 2011 the slab of the roof of Appellant No. 6 residing at Room No. 64, building No. 60A herein fell down. Fortunately enough no casualty was caused to the inmates. The said Appellant therefore through their Advocates M/s V. R. Tripathi & Associates caused a letter dated 28th February 2011 addressed to the various authorities urging them to call upon the Respondent No. 4 to carry out urgent structural repairs to the said chawl to avoid such

mishaps in future. Photographs of the said ceiling were also forwarded to each of the authorities named therein. However, the said authorities again turned deaf ears to the requests of the Appellants and willfully neglected to do perform their statutory duties enshrined upon them for reasons best known to them. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit K is a copy of said letter dated 28/2/11. Appellants crave liberty to refer to and rely upon photographs of the structures on the said property.
(xiii)

When despite repeated request to the said authorities who are saddled with statutory obligation to monitor the redevelopment process as per the scheme of the policy, the grievances of the Appellants were given no consideration, the Appellants were therefore

constrained to file Writ Petition before the Honble High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2011 urging Honourable High Court to issue Writ of Certiorari or such order and direction against the concerned authorities namely i.e. the

Respondents No. 1 to 3 herein, directing them to issue stop work notice prohibiting the Respondent No. 4 from carrying out any further construction work, for issuing Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 4 herein to forthwith carry out repairs to the existing chawls and for other consequential reliefs as more particularly set out therein. Appellants crave

liberty to refer to and rely upon papers and proceedings of the said Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2011.
(xiv)

Appellants state that the said Writ Petition came up for hearing before the Division Bench of Their Lordships Mr. Justice P. B. Majmudar and Mr. Justice R.M.Savant on 29th August 2011. By order dated 29th August 2011 their Lordships were pleased to observe that in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Honourable Court, the Appellants are required to approach this Honourable Forum and therefore Honble High Court could not go into these aspects in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships were however pleased to observe that since MHADA has already granted NOC to Respondent No. 4 (i.e. the Respondent herein), it is the obligation of the Respondent No. 4 to maintain the existing premises where the Appellants are presently staying, Respondent No. 4 shall therefore maintain the said building in proper condition and, if required, Respondent No. 4 may carry out

appropriate repairs so that the occupants may not suffer hardship. Such repairs may be carried out immediately so that building may not collapse and no untoward incident happens and the same may be completed expeditiously and in any case within a period of two months from today... The said writ Petition came to be disposed of on the aforesaid

terms. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit L is a copy of the said order dated 29th August 2011 passed by this Honble Court
(xv)

Appellants state that thus as per the direction of the Division Bench of the Honourable High Court, the Respondent No. 4 herein was required to carry out necessary repairs to the existing chawls and in any case complete the same expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of the said order i.e. on or before 29th October, 2011.

(xvi)

Appellants state that when the Respondent No. 4 did show any signs of their intention to carry out urgent repairs to the dilapidated chawls, the Appellants through their Advocate M/s V. R. Tripathi & Associates addressed a letter dated 6th October 2011 interalia calling upon the said Respondent to carry out repairs to the said buildings and also warned them that if they fail to do so the Appellants would be constrained to file Contempt proceedings against them. However, the said letter was ignored by the Respondent No. 4 in utter disregard to the directions given by Honble High Court. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit M is a copy of the said letter dated 6/10/2011 addressed by Mr. V. r. Tripathi to the Respondent No. 4.

(xvii) Appellants state that the Respondent No. 4 has

however failed and neglected to take any steps whatsoever for ensuring the safety of the

occupants/tenants members of the Appellant No. 1 and/or repairing the existing structures to ensure that the said buildings that are over 100 years old and are in dilapidated condition may not collapse and no untoward incident happens. The Respondent No. 4 has in utter disregards to the rule of law and order passed by the Division Bench of this Honourable Court, willfully neglected and avoided to comply with the direction of this Honourable Court and is thus guilty of deliberate and willful contempt of the order dated 29th August 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Honble High Court.
(xviii) Furthermore, the Respondent No. 4 by their letter

dated

21st

November

2011

addressed

to

the

Secretary of the Appellant No. 1 informed the Appellant that as per MCGM Hydraulic Engineer approval they were commencing the work of laying 6 dia Ductile pipe and sought co-operation of the tenants/occupants of the said chawls. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit N is a copy of said letter dated 21/11/2011 addressed by Respondent No. 4 to the Appellants.
(xix)

The Appellants states that the work of laying ductile pipes involved excavation of land in close proximity to and also beneath the structures of the Appellants and other tenants/occupants of the said property. The structures of the Appellants and other

tenants/occupants of the said property are over 100

years old and are presently in dilapidated condition and cannot bear the vibrations caused by the excavation process for proposed work of the

Respondent. In most certainty, the work proposed to be carried out by the Respondent No. 4 without first carrying out structural repairs to the structures of the Appellants and other tenants/occupants may cause further deterioration structures and it is likely that the structures may collapse posing serious threats to the lives and limbs of the tenants/occupants of the said chawls. The Appellants therefore by their Advocates letter dated 22nd November 2011 called upon the respondent to first comply with the orders and directions passed by Division Bench of the

Honourable High Court and that unless the order is properly complied with the Respondent No. 4 cannot carry out any further development work on the said premises to prevent any untoward incidents. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit O is a copy of said letter dated 22nd November 2011 addressed by Advocate Mr. Raju Korde to the Respondent No. 4.
(xx)

Appellants states that on 28th November 2011, the Senior Inspector of Police of Kalachowkie Police station issued a notice purportedly under Section 149 of the Criminal Procedure Code, informing the Appellants that the Respondent No. 4 have made an application to their Police station to provide police protection for carrying out their proposed work at the

said properties and that the Appellants by the said Notice were called upon to maintain peace and order and allow the Respondent No. 4 to carry out their work peacefully or else the Secretary of the Appellant No. 1 would be held responsible for any untoward incidents. Thus the Respondent No. 4 sought to intimidate and pressurize the Appellants to succumb to their whims in their zeal to high handedly carry out the proposed work on the said property. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit P is a copy of the said Notice dated 28th November 2011 issued by Senior Police Inspector of Kalachowkie Police Station. (xxi) The Appellants were therefore constrained to reply to the said notice purportedly issued by the Senior Police Inspector of Kalachowkie Police Station by their Advocate Mr. Rajendra Kordes letter dated ___________. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit Q is a copy of said letter dated___________ addressed by Advocate Mr. Rajendra D Korde to the Sr. P.I of Kalachowkie Police Station.
(xxii) The Appellants have also filed Contempt Petition No.

____ of 2011 before the Honourable High Court of Judicature at Bombay against the Respondent No. 4 for their willful disobedience and contempt of order dated 29th August 2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Honble High court. Appellants craves liberty to refer to and rely upon papers and proceedings of the said Contempt Petition No. _____ of 2011.

7. In the premises aforesaid the Appellant have approached this

Honble Committee on following amongst other grounds: (a) The Respondent No. 4 had agreed to construct 5 buildings for rehabilitation of the occupants and tenants. It was agreed that the occupants of chawls nos. 59, 60 and 60A would be provided 225+75 sq. feet carpet area in building of ground floor plus 7 storeys;
(b) The Respondent No. 4 had agreed to provide flats of

carpet area of 400 sq. feet in ground plus 17 stories building, to the occupants of the other chawls/buildings in the said property; (c) That clause 17 of the Agreements dated 19.4.2007 and 5.6.2007 unambiguously provides that before the

construction starts if further FSI is made available due to change in policy of Government the benefits thereof would be passed on to the occupants of the properties under redevelopment;
(d) The

government

declared

FSI

of

for

cluster

development under Regulation 33(9) which came in force before Respondent No. 4 started construction/

development work; (e) The Respondent No. 4 after availing additional FSI under changed policy surreptitiously got the plans modified without obtaining requisite consent of the

occupants/tenants and without entering into registered agreement within them;

(f) The IOD condition provides that in case of any change in plans of the redevelopment consent of occupants/tenants would be required. The Respondent No. 4 has not complied with said condition as is evident from the compliance reports of Respondent No. ____ (Exhibits E, F and G hereto); (g) The Respondent No. 4 has changed the plans for rehab building and constructed 23 story building consisting of five wings without taking consensus of the

occupants/tenants as is mandatory in law and policy; (h) The Respondents 1 to 3 have failed to perform their statutory duties and have failed to give any consideration to the grievances of the Appellants and further failed to take any steps against the Respondent No. 4;
(i) The Respondent No. 4 has failed and neglected to

maintain the existing structures which are over 100 years old and in dilapidated conditions even after the incident of _______ when the ceiling fell from one of the structure and this negligence is continuing despite specific direction given by the Division Bench of the Honourable High Court by order dated 29th August 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2011;
8. In the premises aforesaid the Appellants submits that the

Honourable Forum may be pleased to call for all the records pertaining to the development of the said property and after perusing and verifying the same pass appropriate orders and directions be passed against the Respondents. It is further just

proper, equitable and in the interest of justice that this Honble Forum may be pleased to hold that the alteration and modifications to the original sanctioned plans without first obtaining consent from the occupants/tenants and without entering into agreement with them being void and illegal are non-est. This Honourable Forum may be further pleased to declare that the occupants/tenants of the said properties are entitled to additional area than originally agreed pursuant to change in government policy and as agreed upon in clause 17 of the Redevelopment Agreements dated 19.4.2007 and 5.6.2007. It is further just proper and equitable that this Honourable Forum may hold that the occupants are entitled to additional corpus fund due to increase in benefits now available to the Respondent No. 4 in view of the changed policy.
9. Appellants state that the Respondent No. 4 is bent upon continuing

further redevelopment work of laying ductile pipes by excavating land in close proximity and also beneath the existing structures which are over 100 years old and in very vulnerable condition. The Respondent No. 4 has also resorted to adopt arm twisting and high handed tactics by seeking interference of Police agency with a view to pressurize and intimidate the Appellants and other tenants/occupants of the said chawls. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal, unless restrained by an order and injunction of this Honble Forum, the Respondent No. 4 may continue with their surreptitious plans causing life threatening situation to Appellants an other tenants/occupants of the said chawls. It is also just proper and equitable that pending the hearing and final disposal of the present appeal the Respondent No. 4 their servants and agents be restrained by order and direction of this

Honble Forum from carrying out further redevelopment work at the said properties and ad-interim reliefs in the above terms be granted to the Appellant. Grave prejudice and irreparable harm and loss which cannot be compensated in monetary terms will occasion to the Appellants and other tenants/occupants of the said chawls if the releifs as prayed for are not granted. On the contrary no prejudice or harm will occasion to the Respondents if the orders as prayed for are granted. The balance of convenience is therefore in favor of granting the reliefs as prayed.
10. Mr. Prakash Sakharam Ghadigaonkar, who is well and sufficiently

conversant with the facts of the matter is authorized to declare and verify the Appeal on behalf of the Appellants as Constituted Power of Attorney holder of Appellant Nos. 2 to 9, a copy whereof is annexed hereto as Exhibit R. The Secretary of the Appellant No. 1 Trust has authorized said Mr. Prakash to file the present Petition. Annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit S is a copy of said Authorization letter.
11. The Appellants craves liberty to refer to and rely upon documents a

list whereof is annexed hereto.

The Appellants therefore pray:

a) That this Honourable Forum may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to the development of the properties known as New haji Kasam Chawls situate at property bearing C.S No. 71(p), 72, 77, 213/74 and 214/74 at Islam Mill

Compound, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400012 and after perusing the same be pleased to hold: (i) that the Respondent No. 4 has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the Redevelopment Agreements dated 17th April 2007 and 5th June 2007 at Exhibits C and D hereto by not providing additional benefits to the occupants after the development was approved under Regulation 33(9) by offering them additional carpet area and increasing corpus fund for future maintenance of the rehab building; (ii) That the Respondent No. 4 has committed breaches of terms of the said Redevelopment Agreements dated 19.4.2007 and 5.6.2007 by carrying out additions/modifications to the

sanctioned plans without first obtaining consent of the occupants/tenants and by getting plans approved for 23 storey building for rehabilitation contrary to ground plus 7 storey and ground plus 17 storey buildings as originally agreed; (iii) that despite conditions contained in IOD and CC that Respondent No. 4 have failed and neglected to enter into registered agreement with the occupants/tenants to provide them alternate premises and to submit copies thereof to the Respondent No. _____ in breach of conditions of IOD and CC;

b) That

mandatory

orders

be

issued

directing

Respondent No. 4, their servants and agents to stop work and to refrain themselves from carrying out further work of construction and development of said properties known as New haji Kasam Chawls situate at property bearing C.S No. 71(p), 72, 77, 213/74 and 214/74 at Islam Mill

Compound, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400012 without first redressing and correcting the above breaches mentioned in prayer a(i) to a(iii);
c) This Honourable Forum may be pleased to direct

the

Respondent

No.

to

provide

to

the

occupants/tenants additional area in proportion to the benefits accrued to them by virtue of increase in FSI due to changed policy of Government granting them FSI of 4 instead of earlier 2.5 when the said redevelopment agreements were entered into as agreed and confirmed by them in clause 17 of the Redevelopment Agreements dated _______ and ____________ and to renegotiate and enter into registered agreement with the

occupants/tenants as provided in law and to submit copies thereof to the Respondent

No._____;
d) That pending the hearing and final disposal of

Appeal the Respondent may be directed to carry out repairing work at the existing structures occupied by the Appellants and other

occupants/tenants of the New haji Kasam Chawls situate at property bearing C.S No. 71(p), 72, 77, 213/74 and 214/74 at Islam Mill Compound, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai400012 and to implement the order dated 29th August 2011 passed by this Honble Court in Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2011;

e) That pending the hearing and final disposal of

above Appeal this Honble Forum may be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 4, their servants and agents from carrying out any work of construction/development endangering the

existing structures of the chawls known as Haji Kasam Chawls situate at property bearing C.S Nos. 71(p), 72, 77, 213/74 and 214/74 at Islam Mill compound, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 or part thereof;
f) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (d) & (e)

above may be granted; g) Cost of the present Appeal be provided for;

h) Any other and further relief as this Honble Forum

may in the facts and circumstances of the case may deem fit and proper may be granted;

Bombay Dated this day of November 2011.

Advocate for the Appellants

Appellants

VERIFICATION I, Prakash Sakharam Ghadigaonkar, the duly Constituted Attorney of the Appellants herein do hereby solemnly declare that whatever is stated in the foregoing paragraphs ____________ to ____________is true to my own knowledge and what is stated in remaining paragraphs ________to ________ are legal submissions based on information and belief and I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly declared at Mumbai This day of November 2011.

) )

Advocate for the Appellants

I am not a member of Advocates Welfare fund. Stamp of Rs. 2/- is therefore not affixed. BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO. OF 2011

IN

THE

MATTER of the

OF

Development

property

bearing C. S No. 71(P), 72, 77, 213/74 and 214/74 at Islam Mill Compound, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. And IN THE MATTER OF

Development Control Regulation 1999. And IN THE MATTER OF

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1971.

1. NEW HAJI KASAM CHAWL RAHIVASHI

SANGH, a Registered Trust constituted under the ) Provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 )

having office at Haji Kasam Chawl, Dr. Babasaheb)

Ambedkar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012.

2. SAKHARAM ARJUN GHADIGAONKAR

An Adult, inhabitant of Mumbai age about 80 years) Occ: Service )

3. VIKAS BALKRISHNA HIRLEKAR An adult, inhabitant of Mumbai, age about 48 Years, Occ Service

) ) )

4. MOHAN DHONDU SAWANT An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 41 Years, Occ. Service

) ) )

5. VASUDEO PUNDLIK SAWANT An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 62 Years Occ. Service

) ) )

6. RAJESH SHASHIKANT HIRLEKAR An adult, inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 44 Years, Occ. Service

) ) )

7. RAMESH GANPAT PADVE

An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 52 yrs. ) Occ. Service 8. MRS. SUKHI PUKHRAJ RATHOD ) )

An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 60 yrs. ) Occ. Service )

9. PUKHRAJ INDAJI RATHOD

An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 52 yrs. ) Occ. Service All 2 to 9 having their address at New Haji Kasam Chawl, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-12. ) ) ) APPELLANTS

VERSUS

1. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF

GREATER MUMBAI, a statutory body having ) office at Mahapalika Marg, Mahapalika Bhavan,) Mumbai-400001

2. THE MUMBAI BUILDING REPAIR AND

RECONSTRUCTION BOARD, a statutory body) having office at Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. 3. MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AREA ) )

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a statutory body) Constituted under Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1971 having its office At Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. 4. M/S NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. A private limited Company registered under Provisions of Indian Companies Act 1956 ) ) ) ) ) ) )

having office at 101-B, Mittal Court, 10th Floor, ) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400032. ) RESPONDENTS

We (1) NEW HAJI KASAM CHAWL RAHIVASHI SANGH (2) SAKHARAM ARJUN GHADIGOANKAR (3) VIKAS BALKRISHNA HIRLEKAR (4)

MOHAN DHONDU SAWANT (5) VASUDEO PUNDALIK SAWANT (6) RAJESH SHASHIJANT HIRLEKAR (7) RAMESH GANPAT PADVE (8) MRS. SUKHI PUKHRAJ RATHOD (9) PUKHRAJ INDAJI RATHOD, the Appellants above named to hereby appoint MR. RAJENDRA D KORDE, Advocate High Court, having his address at 5/3, New Municipal Chawl,

Laxmibaug, Sion (West), Mumbai-400022 to act appear and plead on our behalf in the above matter. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set and subscribed our respective hands to this writing, on this day of November 2011.

Accepted:

Advocate High Court Office: MR. RAJENDRA D KORDE 5/3 New Municipal Chawl, Laxmibaug, Sion (West), Mumbai-400022. (m) ____________________________ Email address: advrdkorde@gmail.com

BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO. OF 2011

NEW HAJI KASAM CHAWL REHVASHI SANGH & OTHERS VERSUS NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD RESPONDENT APPELLANT

MEMORANDUM OF ADDRESS: NEW HAJI KASAM CHAWL RAHIVASHI SANGH & OTHERS C/O MR. RAJENDRA D KORDE Advocate for the Appellants 5/3 New Municipal Chawl, Laxmibaug, Sion (West), Mumbai-400022.

Advocates for the Appellants

BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO. OF 2011

NEW HAJI KASAM CHAWL REHVASHI SANGH & OTHERS VERSUS NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD RESPONDENT APPELLANT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANTS:

1. Documents obtained by Appellants under Right to Information Act;

2. Photographs of structures; 3. Papers and proceedings of Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2011; 4. Papers and proceedings in Contempt Petition No. _____ of 2011
5. Exhibits to the Appeal; 6. Correspondences prior to the Appeal.

Advocate for the Appellants

BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO. OF 2011

NEW HAJI KASAM CHAWL REHVASHI SANGH & OTHERS VERSUS NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD RESPONDENT APPELLANT

I, Prakash Sakharam Ghadigaonkar, the Authorised signatory of Appellant No. 1 and Constitued Attorney of Appellants 2 to 9 above named residing at 60/55, New Haji Kasam Chawl, 3rd floor, Mahadev Palav Marg, Curry Road, Mumbai-400012, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. I state that the Appellants have filed the above Appeal challenging

the various illegalities committed by the Respondent No. 4 herein in redevelopment of properties known as Haji Kasam Chawls situate at property bearing C.S Nos. 71(p), 72, 77, 213/74 and 214/74 at Islam Mill compound, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 on grounds more particularly narrated in the above Appeal. I reiterate, adhere to and confirm all the statements and averments contained in the above Appeal and for the sake of brevity crave liberty to treat the contents thereof as having reincorporated herein verbatim. 2. I state that I am well and sufficiently conversant with the facts of the case and able to depose to the same.
3. I state that whatever is stated in the foregoing paragraphs

________ to _________ of the above Appeal is true to my own knowledge and belief and whatever is stated in the remaining

paragraphs _____ to _______ of the foregoing Appeal are legal submissions and information and I believe the same to be true.
4. I pray that the above Appeal be made absolute with costs.

Solemnly affirmed at Bombay This day of November 2011.

) )

Advocate for the Appellants

Before me

BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE AT MUMBAI INTERIM APPLICATION NO. IN APPEAL NO. OF 2011 of 2011

IN

THE

MATTER of the

OF

Development

property

bearing C. S No. 71(P), 72, 77, 213/74 and 214/74 at Islam Mill Compound, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. And IN THE MATTER OF

Development Control Regulation 1999. And IN THE MATTER OF

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1971.

1. NEW HAJI KASAM CHAWL RAHIVASHI

SANGH, a Registered Trust constituted under the ) Provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 )

having office at Haji Kasam Chawl, Dr. Babasaheb) Ambedkar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. )

2. SAKHARAM ARJUN GHADIGAONKAR

An Adult, inhabitant of Mumbai age about 80 years) Occ: Service )

3. VIKAS BALKRISHNA HIRLEKAR An adult, inhabitant of Mumbai, age about 48 Years, Occ Service

) ) )

4. MOHAN DHONDU SAWANT An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 41 Years, Occ. Service

) ) )

5. VASUDEO PUNDLIK SAWANT An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 62 Years Occ. Service

) ) )

6. RAJESH SHASHIKANT HIRLEKAR An adult, inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 44

) )

Years, Occ. Service

7. RAMESH GANPAT PADVE

An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 52 yrs. ) Occ. Service 8. MRS. SUKHI PUKHRAJ RATHOD ) )

An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 60 yrs. ) Occ. Service )

9. PUKHRAJ INDAJI RATHOD

An adult inhabitant of Mumbai, aged about 52 yrs. ) Occ. Service All 2 to 9 having their address at New Haji Kasam Chawl, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-12. ) ) ) APPELLANTS

VERSUS

1. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF

GREATER MUMBAI, a statutory body having ) office at Mahapalika Marg, Mahapalika Bhavan,) Mumbai-400001

2. THE MUMBAI BUILDING REPAIR AND

RECONSTRUCTION BOARD, a statutory body) having office at Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051. 3. MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AREA ) )

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a statutory body) Constituted under Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1971 having its office At Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051. 4. M/S NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. A private limited Company registered under Provisions of Indian Companies Act 1956 ) ) ) ) ) ) )

having office at 101-B, Mittal Court, 10th Floor, ) Nariman Point, Mumbai-400032. ) RESPONDENTS

INTERIM

APPLICATION

ON

BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS ABOVE NAMED MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED AS UNDER:

I, Prakash Sakharam Ghadigaonkar, the Authorised signatory of Appellant No. 1 and Constitued Attorney of Appellants 2 to 9 above named residing at 60/55, New Haji Kasam Chawl, 3rd floor, Mahadev Palav Marg, Curry Road, Mumbai-400012, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under: 1. I state that the Appellants have filed the above Appeal against the Respondents above named for challenging various irregularities committed by them in redevelopment of property known as Haji Kasam Chawls situate at property bearing C.S Nos. 71(p), 72, 77, 213/74 and 214/74 at Islam Mill compound, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 on grounds more particularly narrated in the above Appeal. I reiterate, adhere to and confirm all the statements and averments contained in the above Appeal and for the sake of brevity crave liberty to treat the contents thereof as having reincorporated herein verbatim. 2. I state that as more particularly set out in the Appeal despite the repeated request to the various authorities who are saddled with statutory obligation to monitor the redevelopment process as per the scheme of the policy, the grievances of the Appellants were given no consideration, the Appellants were therefore constrained to file Writ Petition before this Honble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2011 urging this Honourable Court to issue Writ of Certiorari or such order and direction against the concerned authorities namely MCGM, MBRRB, MHADA, the Respondents No. 1 to 3 herein, directing them to issue stop work notice prohibiting the Respondent No. 4 from carrying out any further construction work, for issuing Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent herein to forthwith carry out repairs to the existing chawls and for other consequential

reliefs as more particularly set out therein. Appellants crave liberty to refer to and rely upon papers and proceedings of the said Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2011.
3. I state that the said Writ Petition came up for hearing before the

Division Bench of Their Lordships Mr. Justice P. B. Majmudar and Mr. Justice R.M.Savant on 29th August 2011. By order dated 29th August 2011 their Lordships were pleased to observe that in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Honourable Court, the Appellants are required to approach the High Power Committee and therefore this Honble court could not go into these aspects in a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Their Lordships were however pleased to observe that since MHADA has already granted NOC to Respondent No. 4, it is the obligation of the Respondent No. 4 to maintain the existing premises where the Appellants are presently staying, Respondent No. 4 shall therefore maintain the said building in proper condition and, if required, Respondent No. 4 may carry out appropriate repairs so that the occupants may not suffer hardship. Such repairs may be carried out immediately so that building may not collapse and no untoward incident happens and the same may be completed expeditiously and in any case within a period of two months from today... The said writ Petition came to be disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
4. I state that thus as per the direction of the Division Bench of this

Honourable Court, the Respondent No. 4 herein were required to carry out necessary repairs to the existing chawls and in any case complete the same expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of the said order i.e. on or before 29th October, 2011.

5. I state that when the Respondent No. 4 did show any signs of their

intention to carry out urgent repairs to the dilapidated chawls, the Appellants through their Advocate M/s V. R. Tripathi & Associates addressed a letter dated 6th October 2011 interalia calling upon the Respondent No. 4 to carry out repairs to the said buildings and also warned them that if they fail to do so the Appellants would be constrained to file Contempt proceedings against them. However, the said letter was ignored by the Respondent No. 4 in utter disregard to the directions given by this Honble Court.
6. Appellants state that the Respondent No. 4 have however failed

and neglected to take any steps whatsoever for ensuring the safety of the occupants/tenants members of the Appellant No. 1 and/or repairing the existing structures to ensure that the said buildings that are over 100 years old and are in dilapidated condition may not collapse and no untoward incident happens. The Respondent No. 4 has in utter disregards to the rule of law and order passed by the Division Bench of this Honourable Court, willfully neglected and avoided to comply with the direction of this Honourable Court and is thus guilty of deliberate and willful contempt of the order dated 29th August 2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Honble Court. The Appellants have filed appropriate proceedings in the Honble High Court of Judicature of Bombay for said contemptuous acts of the Respondent No. 4.
7. Furthermore, the Respondent No. 4 by their letter dated 21st

November 2011 addressed to the Secretary of the Appellant No. 1 informed the Appellant that as per MCGM Hydraulic Engineer approval they were commencing the work of laying 6 dia Ductile

pipe and sought co-operation of the tenants/occupants of the said chawls.

8. I state that the work of laying ductile pipes involved excavation of

land in close proximity to and also beneath the structures of the Appellants and other tenants/occupants of the said property. The structures of the Appellants and other tenants/occupants of the said property are over 100 years old and are presently in dilapidated condition and cannot bear the vibrations caused by the excavation process for proposed work of the Respondent No. 4. In most certainty, the work proposed to be carried out by the Respondent No. 4 without carrying out structural repairs to the structures of the Appellants and other tenants/occupants may cause further deterioration structures and it is likely that the structures may collapse causes serious threats to the lives and limbs of the tenants/occupants of the said chawls. The Appellants therefore by their Advocates letter dated 22nd November 2011 called upon the Respondent No. 4 to first comply with the orders and directions passed by Division Bench of this Honourable Court and that unless the order is properly complied with the Respondent No. 4 cannot carry out any further development work on the said premises to prevent any untoward incidents.
9. I state that on 28th November 2011, the Senior Inspector of Police

of Kalachowkie Police station issued a notice purportedly under Section 149 of the Criminal Procedure Code, informing the Appellants that the Respondent No.4 have made an application to their Police station to provide police protection for carrying out their proposed work at the said properties and that the Appellants by the said Notice were called upon to maintain peace and order and

allow the Respondent No. 4 to carry out their work peacefully or else the Secretary of the Appellant No. 1 would be held responsible for any untoward incidents. Thus the Respondent No. 4 sought to intimidate and pressurize the Appellants to succumb to their whims in their zeal to high handedly carry out the proposed work on the said property. Appellant craves liberty to refer to and rely upon said Notice dated 28th November 2011 issued by Senior Police Inspector of Kalachowkie Police Station.
10. In

the premises aforesaid the Appellant submits that the

Respondent No. 4 is bent upon continuing with the proposed work of laying ductile pipes by excavating land in close proximity and also beneath the existing structures which are over 100 years old and in very vulnerable condition. The Respondent No. 4 has also resorted to arm twisting and high handed tactics by seeking interference of Police agency with a view to pressurize and intimidate the Appellants and other tenants/occupants of the said chawls. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Appeal, unless restrained by an mandatory order of this Honble Forum, the Respondent may continue with their surreptitious plans and succeed in further flouting order of the Honble High Court causing life threatening situation to Appellants and other

tenants/occupants of the said chawls. It is also just proper and equitable that ad-interim reliefs be granted to the Appellant in above terms. Grave prejudice and irreparable harm and loss which cannot be compensated in monetary terms will occasion to the Appellants and other tenants/occupants of the said chawls. On the contrary no prejudice or harm will occasion to the Respondent No.

4 if the orders as prayed for are granted. The balance of convenience is therefore in favor of granting the reliefs as prayed. 11. The Appellants therefore prays that:

a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of

Appeal the Respondent No. 4 may be directed to carry out repairing work at the existing structures occupied by the Appellants and other

occupants/tenants of the New haji Kasam Chawls situate at property bearing C.S No. 71(p), 72, 77, 213/74 and 214/74 at Islam Mill Compound, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai400012 and to implement the order dated 29th August 2011 passed by this Honble Court in Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2011;

b) That pending the hearing and final disposal of above Appeal this Honble Forum may be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 4, their servants and agents from carrying out any work of construction/development endangering the

existing structures of the chawls known as Haji Kasam Chawls situate at property bearing C.S Nos. 71(p), 72, 77, 213/74 and 214/74 at Islam Mill compound, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 or part thereof; c) For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (d) & (e) above may be granted;

d) Cost of the present Application be provided for; e) Any other and further relief as this Honble Forum may in the facts and circumstances of the case may deem fit and proper may be granted;

Bombay Dated this day of November 2011.

Advocate for the Appellants

Appellants

VERIFICATION I, Prakash Sakharam Ghadigaonkar, the duly Constituted Attorney of the Appellants herein do hereby solemnly declare that whatever is stated in the foregoing paragraphs ____________ to ____________is true to my own knowledge and what is stated in remaining paragraphs ________to

________ are legal submissions based on information and belief and I believe the same to be true.

Solemnly declared at Mumbai This day of November 2011.

) )

Advocate for the Appellants.

BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE AT MUMBAI INTERIM APPLICATION NO. IN APPEAL NO. OF 2011 of 2011

NEW HAJI KASAM CHAWL REHVASHI SANGH & OTHERS VERSUS NISH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD RESPONDENT APPELLANT

I, Prakash Sakharam Ghadigaonkar, the Authorised signatory of Appellant No. 1 and Constitued Attorney of Appellants 2 to 9 above named residing at 60/55, New Haji Kasam Chawl, 3rd floor, Mahadev Palav Marg, Curry Road, Mumbai-400012, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. I state that the Appellants have filed the above Appeal against the

Respondents above named for challenging various irregularities committed by them in redevelopment of property known as Haji Kasam Chawls situate at property bearing C.S Nos. 71(p), 72, 77, 213/74 and 214/74 at Islam Mill compound, Curry Road, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012 on grounds more particularly narrated in the above Appeal. I state that in the said Appeal the Appellants have made above interim application for urgent interim and ad-interim releifs. I reiterate, adhere to and confirm all the statements and averments

contained in the above Appeal and said Interim application. For the sake of brevity I crave liberty to treat the contents thereof as having reincorporated herein verbatim.
2. .I state that whatever is stated in the foregoing interim application is

true to my own knowledge and information which I believe to be true. 3. I pray that the above interim application be made absolute with costs.

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai This day of November 2011.

) )

Advocate for the Appellants

Before me

BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO. OF 2011

New Haji Kasam Chawl Rehvashi Sangh & ors Versus Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd Respondents .. Appellants

APPEAL Dated this day of Nov. 2011

RAJENDRA D KORDE Advocate for the Appellants 5/3, New Municipal Chawl, Laxmibaugh, Sion (West), Mumbai-400022 BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO. OF 2011

New Haji Kasam Chawl Rehvashi Sangh & ors Versus Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd Respondents .. Appellants

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL Dated this day of Nov. 2011

RAJENDRA D KORDE Advocate for the Appellants 5/3, New Municipal Chawl, Laxmibaugh, Sion (West), Mumbai-400022 BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE AT MUMBAI APPEAL NO. OF 2011

New Haji Kasam Chawl Rehvashi Sangh & ors Versus .. Appellants

Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd Respondents

VAKALATNAMA Dated this day of Nov. 2011

RAJENDRA D KORDE Advocate for the Appellants 5/3, New Municipal Chawl, Laxmibaugh, Sion (West), Mumbai-400022

BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE AT MUMBAI INTERIM APPL. IN APPEAL NO. OF 2011 Of 2011

New Haji Kasam Chawl Rehvashi Sangh & ors Versus Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd Respondents .. Appellants

INTERIM APPLICATION Dated this day of Nov. 2011

RAJENDRA D KORDE Advocate for the Appellants 5/3, New Municipal Chawl, Laxmibaugh, Sion (West), Mumbai-400022 BEFORE THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE AT MUMBAI INTERIM APPL. IN APPEAL NO. OF 2011 Of 2011

New Haji Kasam Chawl Rehvashi Sangh & ors Versus Nish Developers Pvt. Ltd Respondents .. Appellants

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF INTERIM APPLICATION Dated this day of Nov. 2011

RAJENDRA D KORDE Advocate for the Appellants 5/3, New Municipal Chawl, Laxmibaugh, Sion (West), Mumbai-400022