G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition concerns subject matter of the redevelopment of 17 buildings belonging to the Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority (for short, “the MHADA”). In respect of such redevelopment, the Housing Department of the Government of Maharashtra issued a communication dated 28 May 2025 inter alia permitting redevelopment of the said 17 buildings, subject to a condition that each of the co-operative societies of the said 17 buildings shall pass a resolution granting its no objection for redevelopment, as contemplated under Clause 7(b) of Regulation 33(5) of the Development Control & Promotion Regulations, 2034 (for short “DCPR 2034”). By the impugned communication dated 30 May 2025, the State Government has deleted/waived the said condition requiring a prior No Objection Certificate from the 17 societies, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. At the outset, the said impugned communication is required to be noted which reads thus:-

                   “(Translation of a photocopy of a Corrigendum, typewritten in Marathi.)

                   GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HOUSING DEPARTMENT

                   3 rd Floor, Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mantralaya (Main Building), Mumbai 400032.

                   E-mail:- gnp-housing@mah.gov.in Telephone No. 022-22793696

                   No. Miscellaneous-2019/M. No.19/Hsg. Date:- 30th May, 2025.

                   To,

                   The Vice President and Chief Executive Officer,

                   Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority,

                   Bandra (East), Mumbai – 51.

                   Subject :- Regarding redevelopment of total 17 buildings viz. Buildings Nos. 1 to 17 situated on the plots of land bearing C. S. Nos. 175 (Part), 193 (Part) S. No. 42 Hissa No. 3 at Poonam Nagar, P. M. G. P. Colony, Village-Majas, Andheri (E.).

                   References:- 1) Government Letter bearing Even Number dated 28.05.2025.

                   2) Letter dated 29.05.2025 from the Vice-President, MHADA.

                   Respected Sir,

                   As per the request made by your Letter referred to hereinabove, you are hereby informed to exclude the condition viz. “to obtain resolutions granting consent from all the Co-operative Housing Societies as per the provisions of Regulation No. 7 (b) of 33 (5) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 as mentioned in the Government Letter referred to hereinabove at Sr. No. 1, in the case of only this redevelopment project of the buildings i.e. Buildings Nos. 1 to 17 in MHADA Colony, situated at P. M. G. P. Colony, Poonam Nagar, Meghwadi, Jogeshwari (East), under the subject.

                   Yours faithfully,

                   Pramod Pandit

                   Desk Officer, Government of Maharashtra.”

Factual Matrix:

3. The petitioner contends that it is an association of 17 co-operative housing societies which are formed by the cooperative societies of each of these 17 buildings, which were constructed by the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board (MHADB). The allotment of tenements in each of these building(s) were made by MHADB. It is not in dispute that the MHADA is not only the owner of these buildings, but also the owner of the land beneath the buildings. The 17 buildings in question are ground plus four structures which were built in the year 1990-92 under the Prime Minister Grant Programme. There are about 986 tenements which were constructed, out of which 942 are residential and 44 are non residential.

4. By passage of time, the buildings have become old and dilapidated. It is not in dispute that these buildings have been classified by the MHADA as also by the municipal corporation in the ‘C-1’ category “i.e. building being unsafe/dangerous, and unfit for habitation and required to be vacated and demolished”. Thus, the situation is that 942 families who are living in these buildings have become extremely dangerous and are likely to suffer an untoward incident of a collapse. The further discussion would point out to the different forums taking cognizance of the seriousness of the condition of the buildings and that human life itself is in peril. The MHADA being the owner is, therefore, seriously concerned with the redevelopment of these buildings.

5. The other admitted position on record is that there is neither any conveyance of the land and the buildings in favour of the society nor any lease agreement entered between the MHADA and the societies, whereby it can be said that in a manner known to law, the legal rights of the MHADA in respect of the land and the buildings were extinguished and transferred in favour of these societies, so that the societies independently can assert legal rights in respect of anything to do with the buildings and/or the land. This aspect is certainly vital, when a redevelopment of these buildings was proposed and more particularly, taking recourse to the provisions of Regulation 33(5) of the DCPR 2034 when it confers an additional Floor Space Index (FSI) to be utilized in the redevelopment of these buildings coupled with the added advantage of free sale components (tenements/flats) being created under such redevelopment which would otherwise be available to a private developer. To this aspect, we shall advert a little later.

6. Although the societies were formed, they appeared to have been quite conscious for the urgent need to redevelop the buildings considering the condition of the building(s), which in fact stood deteriorated in or about the year 2010. This is clear from the fact that on 2 May 2010, an Annual General Meeting of the petitioner was convened wherein a resolution was passed for redevelopment of these buildings, and tenders to be invited in that regard. The petitioner is stated to have resolved to initially appoint respondent No.4 – Shreepati Real Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (for short ‘Shreepati’) as the developer for redevelopment of these buildings. It is the petitioner’s case that on 4 April 2011, appointment of Shreepati was confirmed in the Special General Body meeting in the presence of Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Also, an MOU was executed between the petitioner and Shreepati. In regard to the redevelopment, the MHADA also issued its no objection dated 16 May 2011.

7. In pursuance of such appointment, Shreepati submitted a proposal to the MHADA for redevelopment of these buildings. A revised proposal was submitted by Shreepati which was for obtaining a Letter of Intent for redevelopment being proposal dated 11 August 2013. Also, sometime in October 2013, the MHADA also demarcated the boundaries of the property and called upon Shreepati to resubmit a proposal, as per the amended regulation No.33(5) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (for short ‘DCR 1991’). It appears that at the time of submitting the said proposal, 70% consent letters of the cooperative societies of building Nos.9, 11 and 12 were not received. A Letter of Intent dated 13 November 2014 was issued, whereunder, as per the provisions of Regulation 33(5), MHADA was to get 17369.90 sq.meters of construction area (including fungible area) free of cost.

8. On the aforesaid backdrop, on 27 August 2015 a tripartite agreement came to be executed between the ‘petitioner’, ‘Shreepati’ and the ‘MHADA’ in regard to the redevelopment of the said buildings, which also came to be registered on 26 April 2016.

9. It appears that on 19 May 2016, Shreepati having received consent letters from the remaining building Nos.9, 11 and 12, requested MHADA to issue a revised offer letter, which was issued by MHADA qua the 17 buildings on 8 July 2016. The term of the said letter of offer was six months.

10. On the aforesaid premise, on 7 May 2018, Shreepati submitted plans to the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (MCGM) which was almost after a period of eight years since the appointment of Shreepati by the petitioner as the developer.

11. In June 2018, the State Government appointed MHADA as the Special Planning Authority for the MHADA layouts which included the redevelopment in question. Much thereafter on 15 February 2020, the State Government addressed a letter to the MHADA imposing certain conditions for Shreepati to continue with the redevelopment, which inter alia was to the effect that: (i) Shreepati shall furnish a bank guarantee at 20% of total project cost within 30 days as per the Government Resolution dated 4 July 2019, (ii) it was for Shreepati to furnish an undertaking as to how Shreepati will raise finances required for the said project; (iii) regarding titbit area, MHADA shall make a report to the State Government and the decision of the Government regarding titbit area shall be binding on the parties; (iv) Shreepati shall furnish an undertaking to complete the project as per the bar chart; (v) Shreepati shall furnish personal guarantee for completion of the project; (vi) as also furnish an undertaking, regarding shifting of occupants to transit accommodation, and (vii) in case of failure of Shreepati to redevelop, MHADA shall redevelop the buildings in question.

12. In pursuance of the State Government’s letter dated 15 February 2020, the MHADB by its letter dated 17 June 2020 called upon Shreepati to fulfill the conditions mentioned in the State Government’s letter. This was responded by Shreepati by its letter dated 29 June 2020 wherein it was recorded that a bank guarantee of Rs.45 crores could be furnished by Shreepati. To this letter of Shreepati, the MHADA by its letter dated 17 July 2020 addressed to the Housing Department of the State Government, informed that Shreepati was not willing to submit bank guarantee of 20% of the project cost (Rs. 304 crores) as required by the State Government under the Government Resolution dated 4 July 2019. The MHADA also referred to the report of the Auditor and Finance Controller of MHADA and stated that Shreepati lacked financial wherewithal to undertake the redevelopment of the said project, which was a large redevelopment.

13. On the aforesaid backdrop, on 15 December 2020 the MHADB directed the MHADA to cancel the appointment of Shreepati as the developer. Accordingly, on 28 January 2021 the MHADB addressed a letter to Shreepati, cancelling the appointment of Shreepati, on the ground that it was not willing to furnish the bank guarantee and lacked financial capacity to undertake the redevelopment. This was resisted by Shreepati by its letter dated 12 February 2021, whereby Shreepati made an offer to furnish a bank guarantee of Rs.47 crores. Also on 31 January 2022 Shreepati addressed a letter to the MHADA to issue an NOC for conversion of the said scheme from DCR 33(5)(Low Cost Housing Schemes for economically weaker sections and low income groups.) to DCPR 33(9)(Reconstruction or Redevelopment of Cluster(s) of Buildings Under Cluster Development Scheme(s) (CDS)).

14. On 20 June 2022, the MHADB terminated the tripartite development agreement entered into between the parties, the consequence of which was that Shreepati ceased to have any legal rights to undertake the redevelopment of the project in regard to the 17 buildings. The tripartite agreement contained an arbitration agreement between the parties. Shreepati invoked the arbitration agreement and assailed the termination, firstly by filing an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘ACA’) before this Court, however, no substantive orders were passed on the said proceedings.

15. On 3 July 2024, the MHADB and the MHADA (respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 respectively) published e-tender notice inviting bids for the work of “Appointment of Construction & Development Contract for Redevelopment of PMGP Colony Majaswadi, Jogeshwari (E), (CTS No.175(pt), 191/5)”. It appears that on 5 July 2024, MHADB sought consent of 17 societies for redevelopment of these 17 buildings. The members of the societies were offered transit accommodation or transit rent at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month amongst other benefits. It appears to be an admitted position that 14 societies consented for the redevelopment being initiated by MHADA under the consent resolutions passed in that regard. Thus, the majority of the societies (14 societies out of 17 societies) consented for MHADA to undertake such redevelopment.

16. Insofar as the arbitration proceedings were concerned, on 22 July 2024 the learned Single Judge of this Court appointed Mr. Justice S. J. Kathawalla (Retired) as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties which had arisen under the tripartite agreement. By such order, the Section 9 ACA application was directed to be treated as an application under Section 17 of the ACA. The learned Single Judge also observed that the opening of the bids on 25 July 2025 shall be subject to the outcome of the Section 17 application.

17. The arbitral tribunal entered a reference, and by an ad-interim order dated 20 August 2024 passed on the Section 17 ACA application directed the MHADA to inform every bidder about the arbitral proceedings and the order dated 22 July 2024 passed by the High Court.

18. Thereafter, in terms of the Government Resolution dated 12 January 2023, the MHADA made an application to the State Government for approval of the redevelopment project, as the project cost was estimated at Rs.893.31 crores. Further on 25 April 2025, the MHADA sought approval from the MHADB for appointment of construction and development agency for redevelopment of the said property under Regulation 33(5) of DCPR 2034. On such proposal, the State Government granted its approval subject to obtaining consent from the society vide its letter dated 28 May 2025. The said letter is required to be noted which reads thus:

                   (Translation of a photocopy of a Letter, typewritten in Marathi.)

                   GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA HOUSING DEPARTMENT

                   3rd Floor, Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Mantralaya (Main Building), Mumbai 400032.

                   E-mail:- gnp-housing@mah.gov.in Telephone No. 022-22793696

                   No. Miscellaneous-2019/M. No.19/Hsg. Date:- 28th May, 2025

                   To,

                   The Vice President and Chief Executive Officer,

                   Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 51.

                   Subject :- Regarding redevelopment of total 17 buildings viz. Buildings Nos. 1 to 17 situated on the plot of land bearing C. S. Nos. 175 (Part), 193 (Part) S. No. 42 Hissa No. 3 at Poonam Nagar, P. M. G. P. Colony, Village Majara, Andheri (E.).

                   References :- 1) Government Order bearing No. Resolution- 2022/M. No. 59/Housing ‘Bhu’, dated12.01.2023.

                   2) Government Letter bearing Even Number dated 01.07.2024.

                   3) Letter bearing Outward No. 1/1105701/2025 dated 04.04.2025 from the Vice President and Chief Executive Officer, MHADA.

                   4) Letter dated 25.04.2025 from the Chief Officer, Mumbai Board.

                   Respected Sir,

                   By the Government Letter referred to hereinabove at Sr. No. 2, an approval was granted as per Regulation 33 (5) of the Development Planning and Promotion Regulations, 2034 to the proposal for appointing ‘Construction and Development Agency’ and for carrying out the redevelopment. However, the tender process carried out according to the same, did not receive any response.

                   2. Therefore, in connection with your proposal submitted under the Letter referred to hereinabove at Sr. No. 3 on the abovementioned subject, I am directed to inform you that Government approval for carrying out the redevelopment of the Buildings viz. Buildings Nos. 1 to 17 in MHADA Colony situated at P. M. G. P. Colony, Poonam Nagar, Meghwadi, Jogeshwari (East), subject to obtain Resolutions granting Consent from all the Cooperative Housing Societies as per the provisions of Regulation Nos. 33(5), 7 (b) of the Development Planning and Promotion Regulations, 2034, is hereby granted as under.

                   (I) For the purpose of carrying out construction of the rehabilitation and sale components of the redevelopment project of the Buildings viz. Buildings Nos. 1 to 17 in MHADA Colony situated at P. M. G. P. Colony, Poonam Nagar, Meghwadi, Jogeshwari (East), tender process should be implemented by the MHADA for the appointment of the “Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) Contractor”.

                   (II) Subject to the guidelines mentioned in the Government Order dated 12.01.2023 referred to hereinabove at Sr. No. 1, the administrative approval inprinciple is hereby granted for inviting tenders by the MHADA for an amount to the tune of Rs. 893,31,86,988/- (Eight hundred ninety- three crore, thirty-one lakh, eighty-six thousand, nine hundred eighty- eight rupees only) made of the amount of Rs.500,89,39,036/- for rehabilitation component of the said project and of the amount of Rs.392,42,47,952/- for the residential buildings under the sale component.

                   (III) Moreover, Government approval is hereby granted to the MHADA to implement the tender process through e-tender for sale of the remaining available construction area by excluding the residential buildings under the rehabilitation and sale components in the said project.

                   3. However, while implementing tender process in the present matter, the guidelines mentioned in the Government Order dated 12.01.2023 issued by Housing Department and the guidelines issued by the Central Vigilance Committee (CVC), should be implemented. Moreover, while taking steps in the present matter, action should be taken as per the Rules by taking into consideration the Orders/Instructions and prevailing Orders issued by the Government from time to time.

                   Yours faithfully,

                   Pramod Pandit

                   Desk Officer, Government of Maharashtra.”

                   (emphasis supplied)

19. On the backdrop of the aforesaid letter of the Housing Department of the Government of Maharashtra, on 29 May 2025, a letter was addressed by the MHADA to the housing department seeking waiver of the condition to obtain consent of the societies, as such condition did not form part of the Government Resolution dated 12 January 2023. It is such communication of MHADA which was responded by the State Government by the impugned communication dated 30 May 2025 (supra para-2), whereby the State Government waived the condition to obtain consent of all the co-operative housing societies as per the provisions of clause 7(b) of Regulation 33(5) of DCPR 2034.

20. Thereafter on 16 June 2025, the MHADA issued tender notice for “Survey, Soil Investigation, Planning, Designing, Building Construction, Obtaining all relevant Permissions and Occupancy Certificate from concerned local Authority on Lump-sum Turnkey basis for Redevelopment” in regard to the said buildings. While this was happening, the arbitral tribunal on 11 July 2025 passed an interim order on the Section 17 ACA application filed by Shreepati inter alia observing that the MHADA was admittedly the owner of the land in question, which had constructed 17 buildings on the said land. The learned Arbitrator noted that the buildings were in a dilapidated condition. It was observed that the photographs placed on record of the learned Arbitrator, which were in fact made part of the substantive order of the learned Tribunal, depicted the dangerous condition of the buildings. The arbitral tribunal observed that the MHADA was free to commence and complete the redevelopment project comprising of 17 buildings on the said land without any obstruction from Shreepati. The relevant observations as made by the arbitral tribunal are required to be noted, which read thus:

                   “31. To come to a definite conclusion qua the allegations made by the Applicant Developer and MIHADA against each other and to reach a conclusion as to whether the Applicant Developer is in fact guilty of committing any breaches as alleged by MHADA or whether the fault lies at the door of MHADA as alleged by the Applicant-Developer and MHADA ought not to have terminated the Development Agreement, parties will be required to lead substantial evidence before the Tribunal. However, since all the parties have agreed before the Tribunal that the 17 buildings categorized under Cl Category are in a dilapidated condition and the photographs reproduced above-speaks for itself, there is no doubt whatsoever that the lives and property of a few thousand people residing in 942 residential units and occupying 44 shop premises and passers-by is in grave danger. It is therefore not at all possible for the Tribunal to pass an Order directing a stay on the termination Notice issued by MHADA and/or directing the parties to maintain status quo prevailing as on date. The Applicant Developer will certainly be entitled to claim monetary reliefs against MHADA at the final hearing stage, in case it succeeds in its case that the Termination of the Development Agreement dated 27.08.2015 by MHADA was not legal or valid in the circumstances, since MHADA has the wherewithal to provide transit accommodation to a huge number of occupants (who are few thousand in number) within a short period and MHADA having decided to itself carry out the redevelopment of the 17 buildings at the cost of approximately 500 crores and have already initiated the tender process for appointment of a Contractor for the redevelopment of the project, the following Order is passed:

                   ORDER

                   (i) MHADA is free to commence and complete the redevelopment project comprising of 17 buildings on the said land without any obstruction from the Applicant Developer

                   (ii) MHADA shall forthwith proceed to shift the residents/shopkeepers of Respondent No.2 to transit camps or pay them compensation in lieu of temporary alternate accommodation/premises.

                   (iii) All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.

                   (iv) Application under Section 17 of the Act is accordingly disposed off with no order as to costs.

                   (v) Claimant/Developer to file Statement of Claim on or before 28th of July, 2025. Respondents to file Statement of Defense and Counterclaim if any, on or before 22nd August, 2025.

                   (vi) Stand Over to 4th September, 2025 at 5 p.m. for further directions.”

                   (emphasis supplied)

21. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the arbitral tribunal, approached this Court by filing Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No.25438 of 2025 which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge by an order dated 25 August 2025 keeping open all contentions of the parties urged in the present petition. Thereafter the State Government, by its communication dated 25 September 2025 annexed at Exhibit BB to the writ petition, approved the bids which were received from the EPC contractor-respondent No.5 at Rs.472.87 crores. On 30 September 2025, the Letter of Acceptance was issued in favour of respondent No.5. This was also communicated to the 17 societies on 10 October 2025 by the MHADA.

22. It is on such backdrop, the present petition is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs:-

                   “a. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the communication dated 30.05.2025 bearing No.Sankin-2019/Pra.Kra.19/GruNiPa issued by the Housing Department of the Government of Maharashtra by which requests of MHADA to omit the requirement of obtaining consent resolutions of the Societies on the said land under Regulation 33(5)(7)(b) of DCPR 2034 was approved is ultra vires the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 and the Development Control Regulations 2034.

                   b. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the communication dated 30.05.2025 bearing No.Sankirn-2019/Pra.Kra.19/GruNiPa issued by the Housing Department of the Government of Maharashtra by which requests of MHADA to omit the requirement of obtaining consent resolutions of the Societies on the said land under Regulation 33(5)(7)(b) of DCPR 2034 was approved.

                   c. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Tender Process initiated by the Mumbai Housing And Area Development Board by the E-Tender Notice No.EE/SPC/MB/e-tender/02/2024-25 dated 4.07.2024 regarding Appointment Of Construction & Development Contract For The Redevelopment Of PMGP Colony At Majaswadi, Jogeshwari (E), (Cts No.175(Pt), 191/5).

                   cl. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the communication dated 25.09.2025 bearing No.Sankin. 2019/Pra.Kra. 19/GruNiPa issued by the Housing Department of the Government of Maharashtra whereby approval was granted to acceptance of bid of the Respondent No.5 is illegal and void ab initio.

                   c2. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the communication dated 25.09.2025 bearing No.Sankin-2019/Pra.Kra.19/GruNiPa issued by the Housing Department of the Government of Maharashtra whereby approval was granted to acceptance of bid of the Respondent No.5.

                   c3. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the Letter of Award dated 30.09.2025 issued by Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority to Respondent No.5 is illegal and void ab initio.

                   c4. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside Letter of Award dated 30.09.2025 bearing issued by Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority to Respondent No.5.”

23. A reply affidavit to the petition is filed on behalf of the MHADB of Shri.Ankit Mose, Executive Engineer of the MHADB opposing this petition. In paragraph 7 of this reply affidavit, a categorical contention is raised that the Petitioner-Association is comprising of 17 societies as its members, out of which 14 societies have passed the General Body Resolutions thereby authorising Respondent No. 2-MHADB to undertake the redevelopment in question. The copies of the resolutions are annexed at Exhibit "C" to the reply affidavit. The reply affidavit further states that the position as on date, is that out of the 17 societies, 14 societies have withdrawn their Authority in favour of petitioner to take decision qua the redevelopment of these buildings. It is further contended that all 17 buildings are categorised as C-1 category by the Structural Auditor, hence, being required to be demolished immediately, as these buildings have been in a dangerous condition for a long period. Insofar as the challenge to the impugned communication is concerned, it is contended that same was issued by the Housing Department and not by the Urban Development Department and which has nothing to do with any dilution of requirement of DCPR 2034 conditions. The relevant averments as made in the reply affidavits are required to be noted which read thus:-

                   “7. I say that the Petitioner union is comprising of 17 societies as its members. I say that out of 17 societies, 14 societies have passed the General Body Resolutions thereby authorised the Respondent No. 2 to develop the Petition land. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "C" is list of 14 societies who have passed the Resolution thereby authorised the Respondent No. 2 to redevelop the property.

                   8. I say that the position as on today is that out of 17 societies, 14 societies have withdrawn their Authority in favour of Petitioner to take decision about redevelopment. I say that the signatories of the Petition viz. the office bearers of the Petitioner society have neither authority to file this Petition in the name of the Petitioner nor authority to represent themselves as an office barer of the Petitioner. I say that Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies by letter dated 23rd August, 2024 informed the Respondent No. 2 that the term of office bearers have come to end and there is no election conducted. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "D" is the communication received by Respondent No. 2 from the Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies dated 23rd August, 2024.

                   9. I say that the present Petition is filed with the Resolution dated 23rd June, 2025. I say that office bearer has passed an Resolution and the signatories who have signed and verified the Petition are no longer entitled to represent the society as their term has already come to end.

                   10. I say that all 17 buildings are categorised as C-1 category by the Structural Auditor therefore, required to be demolished. 1 say that the buildings are in most dangerous conditions. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "E" are the copies of the photographs showing the condition of the building

                   11. I say that the Respondent No. 2 has taken the decision to redevelop the Petition property viz. 17 buildings by themselves and appointed the Contractor-the Respondent No. 5. All the necessary formalities are completed and vacating program is already commenced. The members of societies of Petitioner have either offered Transit Accommodation or Transit Rent at the rate of Rs.20000/- p.m. I say that intention to file a present Petition is only to create obstacles in the redevelopment. In fact the Petition is filed at the instance and behest of Respondent No. 4.

                   .......

                   13. I say that the Respondent No. 2 is Owner of the land. The buildings are not conveyed to the society nor the land is leased to the society. Therefore, the Respondent No. 2 has the right to redevelop the property under Regulation 33(5)(2) of DCPR 2034.

                   .....

                   15. I say that as far as the aspect of Redevelopment of Poonam Nagar PMGP Colony Andheri is concerned the Respondent No. 1 is redeveloping the said Poonam Nagar PMGP Colony consisting of 17 buildings as Respondent No. 2 is owner of theland and owner of buildings. The Petitioner cannot dispute right of Respondent No. 2 to redevelop as the Petitioner has accepted the same by not challenging the interim decision of Arbitral Tribunal dated 11th July, 2025.

                   16. I say that Petitioner is neither Owner of the land nor lessee of the land and has no right to question the right of the Respondent No. 2 to redevelop Poonam Nagar PMGP colony Andheri. I say that the members of the society of the Petitioner have right for rehabilitated area as per DCPR 33(5)(2) which the Petitioner is already offering.

                   ........

                   20 I say that as far as Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 are concerned, they are under control of State of Maharashtra. I say that by GR dated 12th January, 2023 the Housing Department has specifically imposed financial restrictions on the Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 to take the approval of Government for executing any project having value more than 50 Crore. Hereto to annexed and marked Exhibit - "F" is the copy of the GR dated 12th January, 2023 has imposed condition on Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 to obtain approval of Government for the project more than 50 Cr.

                   ......

                   22. I say that while granting the approval, Housing Department imposed a condition to obtain the consent of the Societies. I say that as the said condition is not part of incorporated GR dated 12th January, 2023. The Respondent No. 2 had made an application for deletion of the said condition. Accordingly Housing Department has deleted the said condition by letter dated 30th May, 2025. I say that letter at Exhibit - X and Y to the Petition is crystal clear on this issue.

                   .....

                   24. I say that GR dated 12th January, 2023 imposed a condition on Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 3 to obtain approval for spending more than 50 Cr. on any project and accordingly the application was made and the approval was granted by Housing Department dated 28th May, 2025.

                   25. I say that the approval for the spending has nothing to do with the condition of DCPR. Therefore necessary clarification in Letter dated 28 May. 2025 was required to be obtained. Accordingly, Housing Department issued Letter dated 30th May. 2025 for deleting condition incorporated in Letter dated 28th May, 2025. I say that reference of Letter dated 30th May, 2025 make the issue clearer. I say that Petitioner is trying to mislead this Hon'ble Court and trying to interpret Letter dated 30th May. 2025 is the order for waiver of condition incorporated in DCPR 33(5)(7)(b). I say that Respondent no.2 has already taken step top comply with condition and obtained resolution of 4 societies for consenting the redevelopment by Respondent No.2.

                   The Petition is liable to be dismissed on following grounds:

                   a) The office barer of the Petitioner has no authority to take a decision to file a present petition as their term has already come to an end;

                   b) The Petitioner association formed for redevelopment of Poonam Nagar Andheri PMGP has already disassociated and 14 members have withdrawn their consent and passed a resolution in favor of Respondent No. 2 authorizing Respondent No. 2 to redevelop their building.

                   c) That the letter under challenged is a communication of the Housing Department and not of UD Department.

                   d) The withdrawal of the condition imposed in the administrative approval letter which is Exhibit - X to the petition issued as per GR dated 12th January, 2023 and has nothing to do with DCPR condition.

                   27. I say that as the petition is filed at the instant and behest of Respondent No. 4 who had failed to stall redevelopment has filed the petition with ill motive to stall the redevelopment and thereby attempted to jeopardized the rights of 984 families who are living in the buildings which are most dilapidated and have already been categorize as C-1 category. As the Petition is filed with ill motive, the same is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.”

                   (emphasis supplied)

24. On behalf of respondent No.5, a reply affidavit is filed opposing the petition which also reiterates the contentions as urged on behalf of MHADA to submit that it was right and proper for the MHADA to undertake the redevelopment and that the bid which was submitted by respondent No.5 was legal, valid and rightly accepted by the State Government as also by the MHADA.

Submissions

25. Mr. Sakhare, learned senior counsel for the petitioner in assailing the impugned communication dated 30 May 2025 issued by the State Government has limited submissions. The primary contention as urged by Mr. Sakhare is referring to the provisions of Regulation 33(5) clause 7(b) to submit that it was mandatory for the MHADA to have obtained a no objection / approval from 17 societies for the redevelopment, in the absence of which the MHADA could not have taken over the development by appointing a contractor i.e. respondent No.5. It is his submission that once such condition of approval / NOC is incorporated in the statutory regulations, the same could not have been waived by the State Government by the impugned communication. For this reason, the impugned communication deserves to be quashed and set aside and the MHADA should take steps to obtain no objection/approval from the 17 societies and only thereafter the redevelopment can commence as per the provisions of the DCPR 33(5). It is his submission that there is no warrant in the Government exercising its power to dispense with such statutory requirement. Mr. Sakhare would next submit that the proceedings in regard to the redevelopment are sub judice before the arbitral tribunal and in the event Shreepati – developer succeeds, a situation would be brought about that Shreepati would not be in a position to undertake redevelopment and it is for such reason also the writ petition needs to be allowed. To buttress the position taken by the petitioner, Mr. Sakhare submits that the societies would have more benefits in Shreepati undertaking redevelopment, inasmuch as, the area of the permanent alternate accommodation offered by Shreepati, was higher than what is offered by the MHADA to the members of these 17 buildings, hence it is a prejudice being caused to the members of the 17 societies.

26. On the other hand, Mr. Lad, learned counsel for MHADA has opposed this petition extensively referring to the reply affidavit, to which we have made a detailed reference hereinabove. He submits that the entire premise on which the petitioner has founded its case, is misconceived inasmuch as the State Government has rightly dispensed with / waived the requirements of a no objection to be obtained from 17 societies, taking recourse to overall facts and circumstances of the case, as also the purport of the DCPR 33(5) Clause 7(b). It is also his contention that no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the members of the societies as they would be the beneficiaries of permanent alternate tenements, of sufficiently enhanced area and which is strictly in accordance with the DCPR 2034. It is also his submission, that this petition is in fact not of the petitioner association, but filed at the behest of Shreepati, who has failed to obtain any favourable orders before the arbitral tribunal, hence, on such count also the petition needs to be dismissed.

27. Mr. Kunal Mehta, learned Counsel for respondent No.5 has also made extensive submissions supporting Mr. Lad’s contention.

Analysis

28. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We have also perused the record with their assistance. At the outset, we may observe that the limited grievance of the petitioner is in regard to the impugned communication dated 30 May 2025 issued by the State Government dispensing with the NOC / approval of 17 societies as noted by us hereinabove. In our considered opinion, the issue as raised in the petition needs to be addressed on a holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances.

29. Admittedly, 17 societies are struggling to have a successful redevelopment of 17 buildings which have become extremely dangerous / dilapidated and as observed by the arbitral tribunal having grave risk of collapse. In such context, we do not intend to reiterate the facts, suffice it to observe that the petitionerassociation has attempted redevelopment from the year 2010 by appointing Shreepati. The MHADA also, at the relevant time, granted its NOC. However, as noted hereinabove, it appears to be a clear position on record that Shreepati was not in a position to comply with the requirements for such large development entailing revenue of about Rs.800 crores. Under the terms and conditions of the Government Resolution, Shreepati was not in a position to offer the bank guarantee of about Rs.304 crores. Eventually, the petitioners and Shreepati suffered termination of the tripartite agreement, and as stated hereinabove, the proceedings are now pending before the arbitral tribunal. However, merely for the reason that the proceedings are pending before the arbitral tribunal, ought not to bring about a consequence, that in the dire circumstances the redevelopment should be delayed, till the arbitral proceedings are concluded as succinctly observed by the arbitral tribunal (supra). In the meantime, the MHADA in fulfilling its obligations under the provisions of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, was required to take immediate steps so as to come to the rescue of the members of the 17 societies and to enable early redevelopment, that is, by moving the State Government seeking its approval for the redevelopment in question. In this regard, it has taken steps to invite e-tenders for appointment of contractors. Such redevelopment at the hands of MHADA is stated to be strictly in accordance with the Regulation 33(5) of DCPR 2034, which would grant permanent alternate tenements of enhanced area to the occupants. As set out in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5, the area of the permanent tenements under the redevelopment being offered, are as under: