Swatanter Kumar, C.J.
1. The Petitioner in Public Interest Litigation No. 156 of 2006, a full time Right to Information Activist and the Convenor of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information, has filed the above Public Interest Litigation in this Court averring that a major fraud is being perpetrated on the citizens, the slum dwellers and the State by hijacking a welfare scheme to benefit a few at the cost of the public at large. According to him, number of reports had appeared in the media in this regard. In the case of Arun Ramavlal Pathak v. Siddhivanayak Construction Co. and Ors. Misc. Application No. 76 of 2005 the Court of Special Judge, Mumbai had directed a complaint received in such matters to be sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Similar directions were also passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction in the case of Himmat Fulchand Chauhan v. Shri P.D. Nikumbh and Ors. Misc. Application No. 112 of 2006. To pursue the matter and to know the stage of progress, the Petitioner claims to have filed applications to the Public Information Officer of Anti Corruption Bureau to provide the details of investigations and from the information received it revealed that fraud is being committed. He received the letter dated 9th October 2006 from the AntiCorruption Bureau which reads as under:
O. W No. 8015/ ACB, BMU/IR 4788/06
Office of the Addl. Commr. of Police, AntiCorruption Bureau,
BMU, Madhu Industrial Estate,
1st Flor,
P.B. Marg, Worli,
Mumbai 400 013
Date : 09/10/2006
To,
Shri. Shailesh Gandhi,
B2, Gokul Aparmant,
Near Asha Parekh Hospital,
Poddar Road, Santacruz (West)
Mumbai 54.
Subject : Information sought under provisions of R.T.I. Act 2005.
Reference : Your application dated 30092006
Sir,
With reference to the subject noted above the information requested by you under Right to Information Act, 2005 is as follows:
a) AntiCorruption Bureau has received in all 44 applications till 30092006 of which 3 cases have been registered and other applications are in process. The following 3 cases have been registered on orders of the Hon. Spl. Court Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. And are under investigation.
Name of Builder
Address of Plot.
Area of Plot
Date on which complaint received
Date on which investigatio nStarted
Date on which FIR Filed
If Investigatio ncontinuing date by which expect to complete investigation
1) Shri. Prakash AnnappaGadiyar
2) Shri Ramesh BhimrajBhandari
3) Shri Kiran MahadikSiddhivinayak Constructions
CTS No. 515 A, Sukurwadi, M.G. Road, BoriwaliEast, Mumbai 66
7214.65 Sq. Mtr.
17-05-2005
30-06-2005
30-06-2005
Few more months
1) Shri. Kanji Gelabhi Gala
2) Shri Ramnik Shah
3) Shri. Premji Gelabhi GalaRiddhi Siddhi Enterprises
CTS NO.30, A/1, 26 to 53, Kurar Village,Malad East, Mumbai
1339.69 Sq. Mtr
02-03-2006
28-03-2006
28-03-2006
1 year approx.
Shri Rajan Babubhai Mehta
CTS No.545, 545-1 to 30,546 546-1 to 5Kulup wadi, Lane, Boriwali East, Mumbai66
1393.20 Sq. Mtrs
02-09-2006
19-09-2006
19-09-2006
1 year approx.
b) These offences are of criminal misconduct under Prevention of Corruption Act, alongwith other I.P.C. Offences done by Government officials and investigation is largely based on documents. The collection of documents, to prove these offences, is voluminous in nature and also a large number of witnesses need to be examined and thus a stipulated period cannot be given for completion of investigation in these offences.
c) A proposal to the A.C.S. Home, Government of Maharashtra, has been sent to form a Special Cell for investigation of these cases. However the correspondence being of intradepartmental nature and being under process with the State Government, copy of the same cannot be given to you.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/
(Dr. Pradnya Saravade)
Add. Commr. of Police
Public Information Officer
Anti Corruption Bureau.
It was also stated that a report had been submitted to the Government. It is stated that Slum Rehabilitation Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'SRA') has started the schemes with extra ordinary powers being given to the authority giving precedence over all other laws in force with the intention of providing houses to 8 lakh slum dwellers by 2000. S.S. Tinaikar Committee report submitted to the Government exposed such activity to a larger extent but no action has been taken by the State thus sacrificing the public interest. While referring to the basic acts of omission and commission which are committed in a fraudulent manner, the Petitioner specified basic techniques adopted as follows:
(a) Forged signatures of slum dwellers to show that they are agreeable to the developer undertaking the project.
(b) Names of nonexistent slum dwellers being listed to increase the free sale component and also sell the dwellings made in their names at a huge profit.
(c) Usurping Public lands by declaring fictitious large areas as slums, where only small areas have the slums. Often, force, coercion and corruption is used to achieve the nefarious objectives.
2. In response to the application of the Petitioner dated 27th October 2006 under the Right to Information, reply was given by the Anti Corruption Bureau on 7th November 2006 stating that the complaints relate to corruption in redevelopment schemes in collusion with Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Collector and the Developer. Initially, there were 44 complaints which had gone upto 89. Thus, there was an increase in such activities as 45 more complaints were received. In some cases, investigation had been started but really of no effective consequences. Reference has also been made to an article in the newspaper 'DNA' dated 24th November, 2006 stating that the Deputy Secretary (Housing) had directed the SRA not to cooperate with the Anti Corruption Bureau's investigation in these complaints.
3. On this premise, the Petitioner had prayed in this Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a direction to the Respondents to set up a special investigation team to examine all these complaints, furnish adequate staff to the team to complete these investigations expeditiously and to take action against all the erring officers and other private persons involved in these fraudulent activities.
4. We may also notice that on 26th December 2006 a letter was received by the then Chief Justice from a Forum for Improving Quality of Life in Mumbai Suburbs wherein reference was made to an article appearing in Times of India dated 15th September 2006 involving a fraud of Rs. 3 crores in relation to execution of SRA schemes. Reference was also made to the order of the Court directing the Government to create a Task Force to look into complaints on SRA scheme. It was also stated in this letter that SRA scheme has resulted due to acts of commission and omission by the State Government in multidimensional drawbacks currently gripping the city of Mumbai and there was loss of trillions of rupees of the tax payers. A prayer was made to take suo motu action and issue different directions to the Government as well as to ensure that the Anti Corruption Bureau bring the culprits to book and proper policies be framed in this behalf. This letter was ordered to be registered as a Public Interest Litigation under the directions issued by the Court suo motu and this letter was treated as Public Interest Litigation as recorded in the order of the Division Bench dated 21st April 2007. Both these Public Interest Litigations since then have been listed together for hearing.
5. When the petitions came up for hearing on 21st February, 2007, the Division Bench passed the following order:
The first petition is filed by a public interested citizen drawing attention to various irregularities which have occurred in the SRA Schemes. The prayer is to direct a criminal investigation and action against all concerned. The second petition is a suo motu petition where three citizens representing an organization have given a letter to the then Chief Justice and that letter has been treated as a PIL. This letter is also about the SRA scams. We have requested Mr. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate, to appear in the second matter to assist the court.
2. As far as the first petition i.e. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 156 of 2006 is concerned, the petitioner has filed one affidavit wherein he has annexed a list of some 86 complaints and, according to him, these are the complaints wherein proper investigation is required. Mr. Gandhi, petitionerinperson, submits that the Government should not shirk its responsibility and, in fact, a high ranking Officer of the Police Department i.e. Director General, A.C.B., has recommended that a Special Investigation Team be appointed to look into this scam.
3. As against this submission of the petitioner-in-person, the State Government has taken a position that instead of directing such an investigation, under a policy decision of the Government taken way back in the year 1972, an inquiry be permitted to be conducted. The Government has appointed one Mr. B.K. Agrawal, retired I.A.S. Officer to look into these complaints. However, in view of this list of 86 complaints being tendered by Mr. Gandhi, we asked the learned Advocate General appearing for the State/SRA as to whether he will pinpoint some 10 major cases so that Mr. Agrawal can concentrate on those cases. He will hand over list of such 10 cases to Mr. Gandhi, petitioner-in-person and Mr. Walawalkar and on the next date appropriate directions would be passed with respect thereto. The list be furnished within one week. In our view, it will be desirable that a senior Police Officer also assists Mr. Agrawal in the investigation. The matter to stand over to 7th March, 2007.
Thereafter, on 7th March, 2007, the Division Bench had passed the following order:
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
1. On 7th February, 2007, a proposal was made to this Court by the learned Advocate General, which was later examined and this Court by its order dated 24th February, 2007 accepted the Government's stand and it has appointed Mr. B.K. Agrawal, retired IAS Officer to look into the complaints, which have been agitated in these petitions. Mr. Gandhi, who has filed Writ Petition No. 156 of 2006, has cited 86 complaints, out of which the learned Advocate General, as directed by this Court, has identified 10 major cases so that the Commissioner appointed by the State can concentrate on these 10 cases and this proposal was given to the learned Counsel for the petitioners and concerned respondents for examination so that this Court can pass appropriate directions. It was also observed by this Court that a Senior Police Officer also assists in the investigation and that is how the matter was adjourned.
2. Now after examining the issue and particularly, the circular which has been pointed out to us by the learned Advocate General that is circular dated 29th December, 2006 issued by the Housing Department, Government of Maharashtra, relating to the constitution of inquiry committee for inquiring into the complaints received in respect of the slums rehabilitation scheme, which was issued in the context of a circular of Home Department dated 21st February, 1972, which provides for procedure for entrusting the work of investigation against malpractices in government offices, we are of the view that the proposal of the State to nominate Mr. B.K. Agrawal, retired IAS officer as per the aforesaid circular to examine 10 cases, would not serve the purpose and also will not subserve the larger public interest. It will be in the fitness of things that the respondent State adopts the procedure provided in the circular dated 21st February 1972 issued by its Home Department, and nominate senior officials, (preferably an I.A.S. Officernon Departmental) not below the rank of Principal Secretary to the concerned department and to entrust the inquiry in respect of complaints against public Servants for their scrutiny and take steps in accordance with the guidelines issued in the said circular dated 21st February, 1972. We make it clear that the court has not accepted the proposal made by the State Government as not feasible without expressing any opinion as regards the appointment of Mr. Agrawal and further it will be in consonance with the provisions in the circular dated 21st February, 1972. We expect the learned Advocate General will take instructions in the matter and apprise this Court as to within how much time such exercise can be completed.
3. Our attention was also invited by the petitioner who is appearing in person in PIL No. 156 of 2006 to Annexure D viz., an application made on 27th October, 2006 seeking information from the Public Information Officer, Additional Commissioner of Police, ACB, Mumbai. That application has been replied to by the Additional Commissioner of Police, ACB, Brihanmumbai Division, Mumbai on 7th November, 2006. The reply confirms receipt of 89 complaints and states that in pursuance of the orders of the Court, three F.I.Rs have been registered, details of which are set out at Exh. F. Thus, the contention is that offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and other penal laws have been committed and are required to be investigated and the persons concerned dealt with in accordance wi9th law. Therefore, it is necessary to issue directions to the concerned authorities to process all complaints and take action in accordance with law. 4. From a perusal of the petition and the annexures thereto so also above letters, prima facie, we are of the view that direction need to be issued for expeditious investigation of these cases. The aforesaid direction is besides the cases which have been reported to the Police/ACB and in respect of cases where FIRs have been lodged; the concerned Police Station/ Department/ ACB would process those cases in accordance with the procedure prescribed for investigation of such cases and if the report discloses cognizable offence, register FIRs in the matter and investigate the cases as expeditiously as possible. We expect the State would provide all the necessary assistance in the form of infrastructure/logistic and sufficient personnel to assist the concerned Police Station/ Department/ACB to facilitate speedy investigation into these cases, giving them top priority, which is the need of the day, considering the large scale corruption reported in the implementation of the SRA scheme.
5. Mr. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate, who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae in Writ Petition No. 6 of 2007 submits that considering the subject matter of the petition, the court may pass appropriate orders, so that he can take the assistance of his colleagues at the Bar and, therefore, seeks appointment of a team of Advocates to assist him. We make it clear that Mr. Walawalkar is free to make choice from his colleagues, whose assistances he requires in the matter so that this Court can nominate them on the panel to assist him. Adjourned for two weeks.
6. On 7th March, 2007, when the matter came up for hearing, the Division Bench noticed that the reference was made to 86 complaints, out of which 10 major cases were identified so that the Commissioner appointed by the State can concentrate on each of the 10 identified cases and Senior Officer of the Police was directed to be associated with the investigation. However, the Bench did not accept this suggestion of the State and found that appointment of the retired IAS officer in terms of Circular picking up of 10 cases would not serve the purpose and directed adoption of procedure to be followed as prescribed in the circular dated 21st February, 1972 by the Government.
7. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it is stated that the complaints received were considered and the Home Department vide its letter dated 23rd January, 2007 informed the ACB that for the complaints received by the ACB for investigation into the alleged irregularities of the various Slum Rehabilitation Schemes, the Government has appointed a committee and thus, there was no need to appoint an independent committee. It is also averred that the Government is conducting enquiry into the allegations of irregularity into the Slum Rehabilitation Schemes for which complaints have been received in a systematic manner. In some cases in which orders were passed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, stay has been granted and the Government is looking into the matter. Separate detailed affidavit has been filed on behalf of the SRA. There also it has been admitted that out of 86 complaints as referred to in the writ petition, 18 complaints have been directly received by the SRA and they are of a general nature and as and when other complaints are received, they will be examined by the competent authority. The SRA confirmed that investigation under Section 156(3) was ordered by the Special Court and the officials of the Anti Corruption Bureau visited its office on 14th September, 2006 and even the investigation was stayed. According to the authority, there are large number of proposals pending under Slum Rehabilitation Schemes which are nearly 2032 in number and some have been sanctioned. It is averred that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority should be given an opportunity of being heard in relation to the complaints before any directions with regard to a particular complaint, are passed. Reference has also been made to some complaints which are either pending or have been dealt with by SRA. As is evident from the above replies and pleadings of the parties in the writ petition that there are large number of complaints which have been received at the different quarters that is by the Anti Corruption Bureau, Police Stations, SRA and the Government. Thus, the case of the petitioner to some extent is supported by the averments made in the different replies showing that complaints in regard to SRA schemes and its misuse have been filed. The petitioner has also annexed to the writ petition Exhibit `F' showing that ACB Website was searched by him on 22nd November, 2006 and he found that the ACB had started investigation and adequate evidence had been obtained to register the cases, both against high ranking officers as well as developers but according to the petitioner, despite all this, no effective progress had taken place.
8. The preamble of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 shows that it was enacted for making better provisions for the improvement clearance and redevelopment of slum area in the State as well as for protection of occupiers from eviction and distress warrants. The intent of the framers of the Act was also to deal with the matters connected with this purpose. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tulsiwadi Navnirman Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : 2007(6) MhLJ 851 while considering the object and purpose of amendment of this Act held thus:
2. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, (hereinafter referred to as 'Slum Act' for short) came to be extensively amended in 199697 and 2001, introducing Chapter IA therein. That Chapter is entitled 'Slum Rehabilitation Scheme'. Under that Chapter falls Section 3A. This provision is inserted with a view to establish a Slum Rehabilitation Authority (S.R.A. for short) for implementing Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. After this Chapter was introduced in the Slum Act and such Authority became functional for Brihanmumbai and its suburbs, that the S.R.A. decided to undertake and implement several rehabilitation schemes. The State took notice of proliferation of Slums on public lands and properties. Therefore, it decided to confer wide powers on the S.R.A. so that the public lands are cleared by S.R.A. acting in coordination with the local authorities. For that purpose, the State Government made appropriate amendments and inserted provisions in the planning and local laws. Insofar as, Mumbai is concerned, S.R.A. was put in charge of permitting developments on lands, which had large slum pockets. Lands were of private/public ownership. Therefore, after amending Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (M.R.T.P. Act) for short, the Development Control Regulations for Brihanmumbai (D.C. Rules 1991) were also amended. These Development Control Regulations are traceable to Section 22(m) of the M.R.T.P. Act, 1966. For individual development to be controlled, monitored and regulated as also restricted, development control rules were made and they are traceable to the Development Plan itself.
3. One of the Regulations in the set of Regulations, to control development in Mumbai, pertains to Floor Space Index and its computation (F.S.I.). While, computing the permissible F.S.I. for development of the lands/property, incentives were offered by the State and Local Body (Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation) to Developers and Builders. An obligation was cast upon them as also the owners of these private lands to rehabilitate the slum dwellers at the same site as far as possible and after discharging this obligation to develop the plot/land. The incentive was increased F.S.I. or appropriate adjustments in computing permissible outer limit. At the same time, the slum pockets were also offered incentive inasmuch as persons residing in slums were permitted to organise themselves into Cooperative Housing Societies and such Cooperative Societies were further permitted to come forward with a proposal for development of the land, on which slums are situated or located, either by societies themselves or an outside Agency and incentives were offered for the same as well.
4. The underlying object for the above being clearance of the lands by removal of the slums and dilapidated structures. It is now a well known fact of which judicial notice has been taken repeatedly, that large scale encroachment takes place as far as Government properties and lands are concerned. The Government and its instrumentalities and agencies are unable to control encroachment, illegal squatting and unauthorised development on its lands as the political will and strength is lacking. The slum pockets being Vote Banks, preventive or prohibitory measures are not initiated at right time. The number of encroachers and squatters on lands, roads and pavements have increased and one can witness the same. Once the incentives were offered as above and regulatory and rehabilitation measures and schemes were mooted number of disputes and differences between the slum dwellers/encroachers and the local authority and appropriate agencies have arisen which are consuming valuable time of this Court. In such disputes, the acts and omissions of the Authorities and Agencies are highlighted. The State and the SRA does not resolve them is the principal grievance. Hence, steps are taken to approach this Court.
9. The provisions of the Act show that great element of discretion is vested with the SRA and it must exercise its power not only with higher degree of caution and fairness but should ensure that the scheme, meant for upliftment of the poor living in slum, is not abused by the powerful lobby of developers with the aid and favour of the Government functionaries. The very fact that such large number of complaints were received out of which the authorities and courts have found prima facie material shows that certainly the system is not working effectively and is unable to achieve the real purpose sought to be achieved by the enforcement of the provisions of this Act.
10. In the case of Charan Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. : (1997)1 SCC 151 the Supreme Court held that' It is now settled policy of the government as enjoined under Article 46 of the Constitution and the directive principles particularly Articles 38 and 39(b) and the preamble of the Constitution that economic and social justice requires to be done to the weaker sections of the society, in particular to the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes and to prevent them from social injustice and prevention of all forms of exploitation.'
11. Historical background of the Act shows that the legislative intent was to rehouse and resettle the slum dwellers in housing colonies as the existing slums have become a source of danger to the health, safety and convenience. Despite the fact that the Act was amended in subsequent years, the authorities have not been able to effectively implement their power to execute the work of improvement and rehabilitation to the desired levels and in the manner as contemplated under the Act.
12. The contention of the State that they it is looking into the complaints in an appropriate manner does not appear to be a bonafide statement. The schemes under the Act are large in number which is increasing day by day. Keeping in view the nature of complaints that have been received by the authorities, it is clear to us that there could be some complaints which can be dealt with departmentally, while there are other serious complaints which have the element of criminality. There are cases where frauds have been committed, signatures have been forged and even identities of genuine slum dwellers have been changed by impersonation or other methods, which will squarely fall in the field of criminal jurisprudence and therefore, are matters for proper investigation. There cannot be any doubt that where a complainant has filed a complaint, he sets the machinery of criminal justice into motion and it is for the investigating authorities to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The State Government, SRA and /or the investigating agency cannot on any ground whatsoever justify that they keep the complaint pending for years together without any result and/or action against the officers/ officials and the developers or any other persons who are involved in commission of such crimes or illegalities or improprieties. Certainly, the officers and the officials who have been instrumental or have been aiding such acts by omission or commission, must be brought to book and must face the legal consequences.
13. The Government had issued various circulars, including circular dated 21st February, 1972, in regard to the manner in which investigation of cases of malpractices in Government offices had to be effected and thereafter, the circulars dated 29th December, 2006 and 20th March, 2007 regarding constitution of an enquiry committee for enquiring into complaints received in respect of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The Government has also filed analysis of the complaints which are stated to have been received by it. Some of these complaints relate to, the cases where proposals for SRA Scheme are received but have not been processed further or commenced as yet while certain other cases are pending before the courts of law. In some cases, according to the State, complaints have been withdrawn and there are some complaints which are still to be processed. As already noticed, the court had expressed its dissatisfaction in the manner in which the matters were yet to be dealt with and vide its order dated 7th March, 2007, it observed that no purpose would be served if just a retired officer is appointed to look into the matter keeping in view that criminal process had already set in motion under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the persons concerned were required to be investigated and dealt with in accordance with law. The complaints relate to different kind of activities; firstly which may be in the nature of preliminary departmental enquiry and secondly where an element of criminality is involved, including cases of fraud, impersonation, cheating, forgery and hijacking the scheme in its entirety and lastly, the complaints where both these elements may be present. In other words, it will be hardly appropriate to direct investigation or examination of these complaints purely by an administrative process. Some persons had even filed complaints with the Police Stations and forwarded copies to the Commissioners. These complaints had been received at different levels in the department as well as outside the department. These are not the complaints where the Government can justly and fairly rely upon the circular dated 21st February, 1972 and in any case, that contention had been rejected vide order dated 7th March, 2007 which has not been challenged by the Government. In fact, the subsequent orders clearly show that the Government was even willing to have proper investigation completed in accordance with law, however, through an appropriate agency. During the course of hearing, the court was informed that 22 cases had been decided by the High Power Committee constituted by the State in furtherance to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Tulsiwadi Navnirman Housing Society (supra).Notification dated 15th November,2007 was issued constituting this committee. This committee has senior representatives from all the concerned public authorities viz. SRA, MHADA and BMC. In 11 cases, matters are pending before the courts and in some of the complaints, it has been found that there is no fault or no offence has been committed. These cases were examined by the Home Department. It can hardly be disputed that high stakes are involved in these schemes and large amount of litigation is generated in relation to various facets of SRA Schemes. It is also true that the developers do misuse to their advantage. The benefits under these schemes meant for the slum dwellers, who are expected to be rehabilitated as a result of implementation of these schemes, due to certain acts of omission and commission committed by the persons who control the enforcement and implementation of these schemes, are the only one who are deprived. We are of the considered view that these complaints need to be examined at appropriate levels.
14. While referring to various judgments, it was contended on behalf of the State that the Public Interest Litigation in such cases would not be maintainable as well as that reference of such enquiry should be made to an expert body and at it is the State alone which has the discretion to entrust such an inquiry. On behalf of the SRA also, it is contended that the petitioner can lodge complaints with the respective Police Stations and the petitioner has no right to file PIL.
15. In view of the above, the course of action we propose to adopt in the present case, it is not necessary to deal with all these questions but primarily we have no hesitation in observing that PIL is maintainable as all the Government departments concerned are dealing with matters of public importance and the schemes which are intended to benefit the slum dwellers. Fraud, forgery , cheating, misrepresentation, impersonation and hijacking of the SRA Schemes to the benefit of builders as alleged, are the facets which will squarely fall within the ambit of PIL. As such, we are not inclined to accept the objections of the State and the SRA and as already noticed, the course we propose to adopt is primarily suggested by the State itself. As such, they can hardly press these objections.
16. We have already mentioned in some details the nature of these complaints and the necessity for examining them in accordance with law. The complaints, except the one's which purely indicate administrative or departmental irregularities need detailed inquiry. In their substance and nature, they indicate serious lapses and even element of criminality. Thus there would be every need for their proper examination by a specialized investigating agency or appropriate authority to avoid injustice to the slum dwellers and even in the larger public interest. Transparency is one of the essential features of proper governance or public administration. The departments of the Government before us are dealing with the problems of public significance and social upliftments. Thus, fairness in action of these departments would be essential. During the course of hearing, it was also argued that the concerned authorities had failed to discharge their statutory obligations and have dealt with the development schemes in a manner which is violative of not only the provisions of relevant Acts i.e. The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 but even the basic rule of law. The very object of such welfare schemes would stand frustrated if genuine slum dwellers are not provided with the proper transit accommodation and/or permanent accommodation under the schemes as they are hijacked by the property developers and become primary source of commercial transactions. The High Powered Committee constituted by the Notification of the State consists of very high officers from all the statutory bodies which are primarily involved in sanctioning and implementation of these schemes. It is a matter of statutory policies that the Annexure II is prepared by the Municipal Corporation with reference to the survey carried out by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The SRA then accepts the schemes for development and sanctions them in accordance with the provisions of these Acts and the Development Control Regulations, 1991. Obviously, a body where all these Authorities are represented would be most appropriate forum to examine the contents of these complaints and take appropriate action. We are, with respect in conformity with the view expressed by the Full Bench earlier that it should not be left to an individual as functioning of all the Authorities like, Slum Rehabilitation Authority, MHADA and BMC have to be examined. This process is further to be assisted by a Senior Officer of the Investigating Agency in terms of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The law requires that every development scheme has to be backed by the consent of at least 70% of the slum dwellers. It is apparent on the record from the file that in some cases even this requirement is not satisfied and in number of cases even genuine slum dwellers have not been rehabilitated in terms of the scheme. Exhibit F to the petition shows that the criminal cases have also been registered. In the case of M/s. Sai Siddhivinayak Cooperative Housing Society and other Societies even 7 accused were arrested on 14th September, 2006 and some of them had applied for anticipatory bail. It is also stated in this Exhibit that nearly 87 complaints from the victims from the SRA scam had been received.
In Vineet Narayan v. Union of India and Ors. : (1998)1 SCC 226 the Supreme Court while dealing with Hawala cases observed that everyone against whom there is reasonable suspicion of committing a crime has to be treated equally and similarly under the law and probity in public life is of great significance. The Court has to ensure that the Investigating Agency examine the matters in accordance with the law as that will ensure performance of duties by the department in accordance with law.
It is neither permissible nor possible for this Court to examine these 87 complaints on their merit and supervise their inquiry or day to day investigation. It is, therefore, essential that some directions must be issued in regard to the proper investigation and disposal of these complaints and that too expeditiously. It is apparent from the record that there are different types of complaints which would require to be dealt with and investigated by different authorities. A kind of preliminary examination of all these complaints, therefore, would be necessary before actual investigating machinery is put in motion. There might be matters which can be remedied and corrected at the department level, while in other complaints, element of criminality may be involved which requires proper investigation by the concerned authorities. It is the duty of the court to ensure that rule of law prevails and the serious matters are not scuttled by administrative authorities or are not delayed in a manner which would completely render the complainant's grievances incapable of being redressed and remedied.
In our view, the most appropriate way to handle these matters would be to issue certain directions and leave it open to the Authorities concerned to proceed in accordance with law while ensuring that all the matters are examined judiciously and persons responsible for committing illegalities and acting in an unfair manner are brought to book. Thus, while disposing of this Writ Petition, we issue the following directions:
(a) All these 87 complaints, except the one's which are already before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction, would be examined by the members of the High Powered Committee constituted by the State and the Committee upon the inquiry and examination of the relevant records shall record its opinion.
(b) While examining these complaints, the High Powered Committee shall take assistance of the police officers not below the rank of an Additional Commissioner.
(c) The collective opinion of these Authorities shall be recorded and the concerned departments shall take action in furtherance thereto in accordance with law.
(d) Wherever departmental or administrative action is called for, the concerned department whether the State of Maharashtra or statutory bodies like MHADA, BMC and SRA shall take action in accordance with the disciplinary rules applicable to its officers/employees without any further delay.
(e) Wherever element of criminality is involved, particularly in cases of fraud, impersonation or like cases, the investigation would be handed over to an appropriate agency which shall then proceed with the matter in accordance with law and without being influenced in any manner whatsoever by the position or status of the person involved in the case.
(f) All these complaints would be examined by the High Powered Committee assisted by the Additional Commissioner of Police nominated by Director General of Police, Maharashtra, expeditiously. In the event this Committee finds that illegalities or irregularities coupled with the element of criminality justify passing of certain interim directions with regard to stopping, regulating or even cancelling the development schemes, in order to achieve the object of settlement of genuine slum dwellers and the public interest, it would be free to do so, subject to the orders that may be passed by the Courts of Competent Jurisdiction. Rule is made absolute in the above terms, without any order as to costs.
In view of the above directions, nothing survives in Suo Moto Writ Petition (PIL) No. 6 of 2007 and the same is disposed of with no order as to costs.