Slum Rehabilitation Authority PIL

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION.

Rejoinder to State of Maharashtra’s Affidavit dated 20/2/2007

PIL No. 156 of 2006

(Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)

Shailesh Gandhi     …. ..                    Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Maharsahtra & Ors. ….       Respondents

I Shailesh R. Gandhi of of Bombay,Indian Inhabitant Residing at B2, Gokul Apt, Santacruz(w), Mumbai 54, the Petitioner abovenamed do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

The Petitioner has filed a Public Interest Litigation number 156 of 2006. After the first hearing on 7^th February, 2007, when the petitioner wanted to give some additional papers, he was asked to file an affidavit, which he did on 9^th February, 2007.  The main points and facts given in the petition and the affidavit, are given below.

That the Petitioner is concerned with what appears to be a major and organized crime being reported to the Police, with no chance of any charges being framed, since no investigations are being done in them. When a large number of criminal actions are reported and no investigation is done, it would be a clear signal that crimes will not be punished when the Government so desires. In such a situation the rule of Law, is increasingly subverted, and has no

chance of being enforced. 

 The main facts that emerged from the papers mainly obtained from the Government using Right to Information were as follows:

a) There were 89 complaints with the ACB in the end of October, 2006, about various crimes like forgery, cheating, bogus documents, fake tenancies, threats and coercion in taking signatures and vacating slumdwellers in different SRA schemes. There were charges of corruption and collusion against various Government officials from SRA, Collectors office and Municipal officials.

b) The ACB wrote that they will be only able to investigate three complaints where Court directions had been given. They have also confirmed that evidence regarding criminal acts has been unearthed in these. If evidence of criminal Acts is unearthed when investigating just 3 cases, statistically, the probability is that in 89 cases, a significant evidence of criminal acts will be exposed. I quote from the ACB’s letter to me (EXHIBIT C page 22):

“The offences are of criminal misconduct under prevention of Corruption Act, alongwith IPC 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 very large number of witnesses need to be examined and thus a stipulated period cannot be given for completion of investigation in these offences.

A proposal to the A.C.S. Home, Government of Maharashtra, has been sent to form a Special Cell for investigation of cases”.

c) The letter from the Director General of ACB, Maharashtra written on 21 September, 2006, mentions that at that time 26 complaints had been received by ACB.  It further states, ” In view of the seriousness of this newly visible scam, it is recommended that Government may consider setting up of a Special Investigating Team for undertaking a comprehensive investigation into all corruption charges pertaining to the SRA schemes.

  It is recommended that the proposed S.I.T. should have a strength of 10 investigating officers of the rank of PIs and ACPs with sufficient constabulary to assist these officers. It is also recommended that in view of the extent of this incipient scam, the S.I.T. should be headed by an officer of the rank of DIG or IG assisted by 2 officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police as supervisory officers.”

When 26 complaints were received, the highest Police Officer heading ACB in Maharashtra saw the need for a S.I.T.  to investigate the matter, with about 12 officers. The Government made no move to take any action and ensured that the large number of reported criminal acts could not be investigated.

d) In a letter which reveals the Government’s intent the Deputy Secretary, Housing wrote to the CEO of SRA on 15 November (EXHIBIT K-page 47)  “Information which has been ordered by the Hon. Special Court to be given, should be given to the Additional Commissioner, ACB, Mumbai. The administration has decided that there is no need to give the information of the other matters to the ACB.”   

e) Thus there was a clear design and method to the Government’s approach in this matter. Deny information to the ACB and ensure that no resources were available for investigating a very large number of criminal complaints. Thus all the wrongdoers would get away with this simple modus operandi, as long as the Government wished to. All of us are also well aware that delay in investigation, would facilitate the wrongdoers to bribe and threaten the complainants-often with the help of organized gangs, and the underworld.

This showed a clear collusive, collaborative, criminal conspiracy to ensure that criminal acts though reported to law enforcing agencies, and reported widely, would go undetected and unpunished, inspite of Citizens filing specific complaints. There are also cases where Citizens have approached the High Court, and other Courts. Given the letter of the Deputy Secretary, Housing, mentioned earlier, Citizens would have to increasingly approach Courts, to even have a fictional hope of some action, and the Courts would be reduced to performing the function of registering Complaints like a police station, since the Police had been rendered powerless. 

Disturbed by these facts and the all the circumstantial evidence, I filed my PIL, asking for specific relief. My main prayers needed to be addressed urgently, if they were to have any effect. The prayers were:

a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or  any other  appropriate  writ, commanding the Respondents to set up a Special Investigation Team.

b)That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Government that the Special Investigating team be furnished with adequate staff to specially probe the very large fraud in the SRA schemes.

c)That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct that the Special Investigation Team  be charged with completing the investigations into the SRA schemes where there are complaints or reported irregularities, within a time-bound program., and reporting the progress and results to the Court.

d)That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct that until the final disposal of this petition no third party interests in the SRA schemes should allowed to be created.

e)That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) & (d) above;

These were focused and specific. If they had substance, they needed to be given immediately. The PIL was lodged on 29/11/06 and mentioned and circulated in the first half of December.

The Government’s affidavit filed on 20 February, 2007, states at page 53, ” He (the petitioner) also appears to be not aware of the implications of his unjustifiable demands and impractical suggestions. The entire petition of the Petitioner is based on certain newspaper reports and hence totally misconceived and therefore ought to be dismissed on this ground itself.” 

It distorts the truth, by misrepresenting the fact that   the main grounds are based on information provided by the Government.

It further states that “Lakhs of hutment dwellers have been rehabilitated so far.” Most reports are that the number of hutment dwellers is less than 1 lakh.

The affidavit then quotes a circular of 1972, EXHIBIT 1 issued by the Home Department On page 59, it states ” This department has       been receiving requests from other departments like Sales Tax, Coo-operation , etc., for creating special units in the Police Department for investigating into cases of large scale breaches of procedures, rules, regulations etc. in the administrations under them…… “. This circular was to help in deciding when the Police should set up a SIT.

This is now used to justify denial of a SIT when the demand is from the Police itself!

The affidavit further states that on 29^th December, 2006 a one man Enquiry Committee has been set

 up. On page 66 of its EXHIBIT –2, it states, ” Complaints are proposed to be first enquired, case wise, through the Housing dept. being the Administrative  dept. and then in case any regularity is found in the enquiry in the slum rehabilitation scheme a non-biased action is intended to be taken.” 

It must be noted, that the terms of reference do not mention considering and recommending any  investigation.

I would also like to point out that when the Court asked the learned Advocate General about the work done by the one-man Enquiry Committee so far, and the number of people working on it, he said he did not know.  It is common knowledge that enquiry committees usually take over a year, and their biggest use is to bury all matters while pretending to be seized of the matter. This Enquiry is an attempt to whitewash the illegal actions of the Government refusing to investigate crimes of an unprecedented nature to protect the criminals.  Taking this logic forward, the Government could keep setting up Enquiry Committees whenever major crimes or even gangland activities are reported, and perhaps reduce the Police force very profitably.

I pointed out in Court that a job which required an investigation team of officers, could not be done by a one-person Committee. The Advocate General said he had suggested that only 10 complaints should be enquired into. The Court agreed with this and suggested that I could participate in the selection of names. 

I can see no purpose being served by such an exercise, except giving the Government a figleaf of a justification for inaction. If this is the course of action being followed, it confirms the position they have taken in their affidavit, that no immediate investigation is required. It also defeats the plea of an intensive investigation, which my Petition pleads for. If this be the case, it would only be logical to concede the Government’s plea on page 53 and 58 asking for my Petition to be dismissed. 

There is another unrelated development which,-  without opposing my petition,- has the impact of affecting and delaying my petition. ‘Forum for Improving Quality of Life in Mumbai/Suburbs’ had sent a letter to the Court in end November, 2006.

The letter talks about corruption in the SRA schemes as reported in various newspapers. The primary demands listed in it are:

1) To make the government answerable to the citizens of Mumbai on the above mentioned issue.

2) To ensure added pressure on the Anti-Corruption Bureau to bring all the culprits to book

3) Ensure government does not promote such schemes in the future.

4) Ensure people’s participation in formulating future projects through government/citizen’s initiatives.

5) To seek damages from the government incurred during the implementation of 15 years of SRA. We want the government to recover all the money from those who have exploited the SRA scheme and repay the same to the Citizens of Mumbai.

6) Scrap the SRA in its current form.

7) Uphold the rights of all people to a Good Quality of Life irrespective of their economic standing in the society.

8) Money required to build houses for the slums/ redevelopment of Mumbai be raised from within the public and not through World Banks. Public issues, Stocks and bonds with tax benefits could be considered an alternative

9) Renting out low cost houses rather than giving them away on ownership could be considered an alternative.

10) Once an area has been demarcated for Low Cost Housing or any other developmental plan for the City of Mumbai has been passed, the same should not be changed into any other format unilaterally by the Government.

This letter has been converted by the Court into a Suo Moto Writ Petition SMWP/6/2007 and clubbed with my petition on 21 February, 2007 when the hearing was held.

Whereas my Petition is specifically concerned with ensuring an immediate investigation of crimes reported to the Police, the letter primarily seeks to have the SRA scheme scrapped, apart from various weighty matters like ensuring government does not promote such schemes in the future, ensuring people’s participation in formulating future projects through government/citizen’s initiatives, and seeking damages from the government incurred during the implementation of 15 years of SRA. The main reliefs

sought in the letter have nothing in substance common with my petition. My petition clearly asks for investigating large scale crimes where complaints have been filed and no investigation,-leave alone action,- is being undertaken. This prayer, must be granted expeditiously, since criminal acts are extremely difficult to investigate and prove as time elapses. The Suo Moto Petition which is being clubbed with my petition, will obviously involve interventions from various Slum Dwellers Associations and the Builders, and therefore become a long-drawn case with a large number of petitioners carrying the case on, for a few years in the Court. This would have the effect of defeating the very purpose of my Petition, which seeks only to enforce the law.

I perceive that the clubbing of these two petitions is mistaken, and hurts the disposal of my Prayers so significantly and adversely, as to render it meaningless and ineffective.

 I request that the Court consider my petition independently and decide whether it wishes to give the specific reliefs prayed for. Otherwise, I plead with the Court to atleast give me some reasons for clubbing my petition with the Petition SMWP/6/2007.  

In view of the above, I say that the logical outcome of my Petition would be:

a) Either granting the interim Prayers and directing the State Government to immediately set up adequate machinery to investigate this huge crime, and order that no third party interests be created pending the disposal of this petition.

Or

b) Dismissing the Petition.

And

b) Treating this Petition independent of the Suo Moto Petition.