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, ruled the Bombay High Court recently.
Court quashes order passed by AGRC
The court has quashed the order passed by the AGRC while referring to the minutes of its earlier order. It has also directed the parties to register a different agreement than the one mentioned in the original order.
“It is a settled legal proposition that unless the Statute/Rules so permit, a Review Application is not maintainable in the case of judicial/quasi-judicial Orders,” observed Justice Madhav Jamdar recently. “What has been done by the AGRC is that under the guise of styling the Order as speaking to the minutes of the Order passed on 28th June 2023, the Order is effectively reviewed.”
Background details of case
The HC was hearing a plea by one Sitara Sharma challenging the AGRC’s order. Initially, AGRC had passed an order on June 28 this year, which was then modified on September 15. On June 28, AGRC directed the developer to pay applicable Transit Rent to Sharma and to register an Agreement executed on April 20, 2022, for Permanent Alternate Accommodation (PAA) within ten working days.
However, the developer filed an application for speaking to the minutes, stating that the agreement on April 20, 2022, is not according to the Slum Redevelopment Scheme. He then sought to execute a fresh PAA Agreement.
In its order, AGRC noted that the April 2020 agreement pertained to the area from the Sale Component of the builder and had nothing to do with SRA. It hence noted that it cannot force the developer to register that agreement. The PAA Agreement pertaining to the area of entitlement of the applicant as an eligible slum dweller is already executed on November 26, 2009, it added.
AGRC modifies order, deletes some words
The order was modified by AGRC on September 15 and deleted the words 'executed on 20.04.2022', directing the builder to register and execute the Agreement for Permanent Alternate Accommodation within ten working days.
Justice Jamdar opined that while purporting to deal with an application for speaking to the minutes of the June 28, 2023 Order, the AGRC effectively reviewed the said order. This is contrary to the statutory provisions under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance, and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The HC said that the AGRC had overlooked the settled legal position, stating that a review application is not maintainable unless expressly permitted by statute or rules.
The court quashed the AGRC’s September 15 order, stating that the review was undertaken without statutory jurisdiction. It said that the developer has an option to challenge the June 28 order through appropriate legal proceedings, but a review was impermissible.
Sharma's counsel said that the petitioner was ready to comply with the original June 28 order upon payment of applicable transit rent and execution of the specified agreement. The court accepted this statement as an undertaking and directed to take further steps for possession as per the June order.
