RAMCHANDRA MAHADEV JAGPAT AND ORS. versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 658 · Decided: 07-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: IA disposed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAMCHANDRA MAHADEV JAG PAT AND ORS. 
v. 
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 7, 2006 
B 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article I36. 
Special Leave Petition-Necessary party-Application for i1'ipleadment 
C and recall of order-Slum Rehabilitation Scheme-Development agreement-
Revocation of-Applicant 'S' was appointed as a developer by the Co-
operative Housing Society as a developer in respect of a Slum Rehabilitation 
Scheme of the property in question-When the applicant was about to get 
the Letter of Intent, a writ petition was filed by some slum dwellers challenging 
D the appointment of 'S' as a developer-High Court dismissed the writ petition 
and directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to put additional 
conditions-Special Leave Petition filed against the said order-During its 
pendency the Society gave 11otices purporting to revoke the development 
agreement executed in favour of 'S'-The Management. of the Society. also 
decided to appoint 'K' to execute the project-The said Special Leave Petition 
E was dismissed-The very same slum dwellers filed another writ petition 
alleging that 'S' did not commence re-development of the properties in terms 
of the agreement-'S' was not made a party to this writ petition-The Principal 
Secretary, Housing Department directed SRA to issue Letter of Intent in 
favour of 'S'-In the second Special Leave Petition filed against the order 
F passed in the second writ petition 'S' was again not made a party-This 
Court passed an order in the second Special Leave Petition directing SRA 
to iswe a Letter of Intent in favour of 'K'-'S' filed an application for 
impieadment and recall of the order passed against 'K'-Held: 'S' was a 
necessary party to the second writ petition and to the second Special Leave 
Petition as it was directly affected by any order appointing 'K' as a 
G developer-Therefor~, 'S' should have been made ..i party respondent in the 
second •vrit petition as well as in the second Special Leave Petition-Hence, 
the order passed in the second Special Leave Petition is recalled-The SRA 
is directed to call the two developers, namely, 'K' and 'S' and to award the 
Letter of Intent to the developer who satisfies the required qualifications and 
H 
658 
-
RAMCHANDRA MAHADEV JAGPATv. CHIEF EXEClJilVE OFFICER 
659 
conditions and regulations and the provision of the Slum Areas Improvement A 
Act-Maharashtra Slum Areas Improvement, Clearance and Re-development 
Act, 1971. 
The applicant 'S' was appointed as a developer by the Co-operative 
Housing Society Limited-respondent No. 2 in respect of a Slum Rehabilita_tion 
Scheme of the property in question. When the applicant was about to get the B 
Letter of Intent, a writ petition was filed l>y some slum dwellers challenging 
the appointment of 'S' as a developer. The High Court dismissed the writ 
petition and directed the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to put additional 
conditions. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petition challenging 
the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition the Society gave notices C 
purporting to revoke the development agreement executed in favour of 'S'. 
The Management of the Society also decided to appoint 'K' to execute the 
project However, the said Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. 
The very same slum dwellers filed another writ petition alleging that 'S' did 
not commence re-development of the properties in terms of the agreement. 
'S' was not made a party to this writ petition. 'S' wrote a letter to SRA D 
enclosing a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2.5 crores towards the interest-free 
deposit with SRA. However, the cheque was not accepted by SRA stating that 
there was no specific order of the High Court to accept the amount from 'S'. 
The Principal Secretary, Housing Department directed SRA to issue Letter 
of Intent in favour of 'S'. 
In the second writ petition the High Court passed an order directing 
the SRA to call the parties and pass an order in terms of the High Court 
judgment. In the Special Leave Petition filed against this order 'S' was again 
not made a party. 
This Court passed an order in the above Special Leave Petition directing 
SRA to issue a Letter of Intent in favour of 'K'. Hence, 'S' filed an application 
before this Court for impleadment and to recall the order passed by this Court 
Disposing of the application, the Court 
E 
F 
HELD: 1. The applicant 'S' has explained to thi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.