JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:—The petitions have approached this Court by filing the present petition in public interest litigation for a declaration that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority ("SRA" for short) is not entitled to act as Project Implementing Authority (PIA) nor it can execute/implement any scheme prepared or sanctioned by respondent-authorities at Anik, Chandivali, Dahisar and Dharavi. A prayer is also made for quashing and setting aside resolutions dated 15th January, 1998 and 17th October, 1998 as mala fide, illegal and beyond the power of SRA. It is prayed that this Court may direct respondents to produce relevant records and proceedings relating to implementation of schemes at Anik, Chandivali, Dahisar and Dharavi and declare them illegal, unlawful and improper. 2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is an ex-service man of Indian Army and also a social worker. He has successfully fought various social action litigations for the benefit of downtrodden strata of the society and had also agitated against corrupt practices adopted by public officers, Ministers and bureaucrats. Petitioner No. 1 has filed several Public Interest Petitions (PILs) in this Court as well as in other courts. He is a "well-known crusader against corruption". According to him, he had been deeply disturbed by the glaring incidents of officers of high-ranking of the State of Maharashtra, respondent No. 1, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, respondent No. 2 and SRA, respondent No. 3. Under the guise of slum rehabilitation plan, all the respondents had allowed amassed wealth in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 7. 3. So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it is stated that he is also a social worker and has agitated various public causes by taking appropriate proceedings. 4. Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 are owners of various properties. They are the beneficiaries of largess granted by respondent No. 3-SRA, statutory authority under the guise of construction of tenements in different areas to rehouse and relocate Project Affected Persons (PAPs). According to the petitioners, respondent No. 3-SRA is Planning Authority to rehouse and relocate slum dwellers by providing them proper and safe shelter. For that purpose, SRA is empowered under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), to sanction plans submitted to it in accordance with law. According to the petitioners, respondent No. 3-SRA is Planning Authority to rehouse and relocate slum dwellers by providing them proper and safe shelter. For that purpose, SRA is empowered under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), to sanction plans submitted to it in accordance with law. Normally, the procedure of respondent No. 3 is to invite tenders and to Award work on the basis of competitive bids. The grievance of the petitioners is that in the instant case, no such well settled procedure has been followed only with a view to favour and extend huge profits to respondents Nos. 4 to 7. 5. It is stated by the petitioners that they are "in no way connected with the planning, implementation or benefit" derived from the scheme. They are agitated and have come before this Court only in the larger interest of general public. The petitioners have come across a news item in Marathi newspaper "Loksatta" (daily) dated December 17 and December 18, 2003, giving particulars of granting TDR. It is alleged that TDR had been released in favour of respondent No. 4 under the bogus documentation and there was scam of Rs. 900 crores (approximately). Petitioner No. 1 has also received anonymous letter dated December 21, 2003 with certain photographs from "a citizen of India" revealing modus operandi of respondents petitioner No. 1, hence, made inquiries with several businessmen and officers dealing with TDR. Both the petitioners gathered sufficient information and came to know that respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are very influential persons having personal contacts with politicians and bureaucrats including Minister for Housing, Chairman of respondent No. 3 and having dealings in TDR. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have plenty of means to manipulate the system and bureaucracy and politicians readily obliged them by joining hands and allowing respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to monopolise TDR. From various reports, the petitioners have come to know that respondent No. 4 has practically controlled respondent No. 3 SRA. Respondent No. 4 is having various projects. All his files are given priority by extending undue benefits like relaxation of rules and leniency in requirements by respondent Nos. 1 to 2. It is alleged that for the benefits of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, respondent No. 3-SRA has the blessings of politicians. Respondent No. 4 is having various projects. All his files are given priority by extending undue benefits like relaxation of rules and leniency in requirements by respondent Nos. 1 to 2. It is alleged that for the benefits of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, respondent No. 3-SRA has the blessings of politicians. Accordingly, SRA innovated a new concept of implementing the project approved by it thereby usurping the function of implementing authority illegally and unlawfully. The action has been taken only with a view to give benefit to vested interests like respondent Nos. 4 to 7. The petitioners have alleged that the scheme will neither be in the interest of slum-dwellers nor in the interest of residents as there will be conversion of huge horizontal slums into vertical slums. The great disadvantage of the scheme is that respondent Nos. 4 to 7 will get TDR and accumulate huge wealth. 6. Petitioners stated that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 published guidelines for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in Greater Mumbai. The guidelines specified that residents spread over around 25 lakhs tenements live in unhygenic deplorable huts and with a view to providing housing accommodation to them, a scheme was required to be framed and implemented. The scheme was thus for betterment and upgradation of slum-dwellers. Several actions have been taken for implementation and execution of the scheme. It was to be carried out in accordance with Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"). Referring to relevant clauses of Regulation 33 of the Regulations, the petitioners contended that actions ought to have been taken by the authorities in consonance with those provisions. Unfortunately, however, ignoring the relevant provisions of law and extending undue benefits to respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in collusion with each other, the authorities played fraud of crores of rupees and benefited private parties i.e. respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Though respondent No. 3 is not the implementing authority and, hence, it could not have worked as such authority, even the scheme has not been implemented in its proper spirit. TDRs have been given indiscriminately, illegally and unlawfully. 4 to 7. Though respondent No. 3 is not the implementing authority and, hence, it could not have worked as such authority, even the scheme has not been implemented in its proper spirit. TDRs have been given indiscriminately, illegally and unlawfully. Slum dwellers, for whose benefits the buildings are supposed to be constructed, will either not get the tenements at all or will get tenements of inferior quality of construction which would endanger slum dwellers as well as the entire community for whose interest respondent-authorities are supposed to work. The action is thus mala fide and has been taken in colourable exercise of power. Pre-conditions and basic criteria required for the scheme have not been fulfilled. The project is not notified in Maharashtra Government Gazette which is the requirement of law. 7. It is also stated by the petitioners that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had submitted their proposal for PAPs tenements to Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) but the proposal was rejected by the authority as not viable on technical and also on legal grounds. The said project is now undertaken by respondent No. 3-SRA Chairman of SRA as well as MMRDA is one and the same person viz. Honble the Chief Minister, who rejected the proposal of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in one capacity but accepted it in another capacity. That fact reveals oblique motives of respondent No. 3 in accepting and choosing to implement the proposal by giving benefits to respondent Nos. 4 to 7. 8. It is asserted by the petitioners that implementing authorities under other projects have fixed norms for release of TDR. Certain percentage of TDR is released phase wise depending upon progress of work. In the instant case, however, against lesser quantum of work, exorbitantly high TDR has been released. The petitioners came across a news item of sale of TDR by respondent No. 4 at the rate of Rs. 551/- per sq.ft. which is much lower than the prevailing market rate of about Rs. 600/- per sq.ft. This shows that tendency of desperate sale apparently with ulterior motive of encashing unlawful gains at the earliest opportunity. It is alleged that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are virtually under the thumb of respondent No. 4 and had practically signed on dotted lines prepared by respondent No. 4. 600/- per sq.ft. This shows that tendency of desperate sale apparently with ulterior motive of encashing unlawful gains at the earliest opportunity. It is alleged that respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are virtually under the thumb of respondent No. 4 and had practically signed on dotted lines prepared by respondent No. 4. On 15th January, 1998, in the meeting of SRA, a resolution was passed that land owners can transfer land together with the constructed tenements to SRA which will be utilised for relocation and rehabilitation of PAPs from areas of Railways, Road Projects, Airport etc. Another resolution dated 7th October, 1998 provided sale components in the ratio of 1:1:33 to be granted if the proposed tenements are for rehabilitation of slum dwellers affected by Vital Public Projects. Petitioners have come forward contending that both the aforesaid resolutions are illegal, mala fide, and beyond the power and authority of respondent No. 3 SRA. They are also contrary to the Regulations and the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTP Act"). The petitioners contended that respondent No. 3 is not entitled to act as implementing/executing authority and cannot execute/implement schemes at Anik, Chandivali, Dahisar and Dharavi. Both the resolutions must, therefore, be held illegal and bad-in-law. Respondent No. 2 should be restrained from acting on recommendation letter relating to TDR-FSI by respondent No. 3 and the case may be ordered to be handed over to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or such other agency/authority as this Court deems fit to inquire into fraudulent acts, illegalities and irregularities committed by respondent No. 3-SRA in collusion and connivance with respondent Nos. 4 to 7. 9. The petition was instituted on 29th December, 2003. Since it was during Christmas Holidays, it was placed before the learned Vacation Judge on December 30, 2003. After hearing the parties, certain directions were issued by the learned Vacation Judge. After re-opening of courts, the matter was placed for hearing before a regular Court. Affidavits and further affidavits have been filed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length. 10. A detailed and lengthy affidavit is filed by the Chief Executive Officer, SRA, respondent No. 3 herein. After re-opening of courts, the matter was placed for hearing before a regular Court. Affidavits and further affidavits have been filed. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at considerable length. 10. A detailed and lengthy affidavit is filed by the Chief Executive Officer, SRA, respondent No. 3 herein. Certain preliminary objections have been taken by the deponent, inter alia, contending that the writ petition is not filed in public interest but is filed with mala fide intention; there is gross and inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Court and in challenging Resolutions dated 15th January, 1998 and 29th June, 1998 (wrongly shown as 7th December, 1998) passed by SRA, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the resolutions which are policy decisions by SRA, etc. 11. On merits, it was submitted by SRA that it has power to sanction schemes under the relevant clauses of Regulation 33(10); the schemes sanctioned by SRA are beneficial; the actions which have been taken by SRA are not only in the interest of slum dwellers but also in the larger interest of general public. SRA has considered the projects submitted by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and in accordance with law, decisions have been taken which are legal, valid and proper. The provisions of the Act, the MRTP Act, the guidelines issued from time to time and D.C. Regulations have been observed in letter and spirit. The allegations levelled against SRA are totally false, baseless, unwarranted and the remarks are required to be expunged. Both the resolutions are in conformity with law and no objection can be raised against any of them. Benefits of TDR have been given to respondent Nos. 4 to 7 strictly as per the policy of the respondents and that also in a phase-wise manner. The petitioners, therefore, cannot challenge the said action. 12. Further affidavit in reply was filed by the Chief Executive Officer of respondent No. 3 stating that after the filing of the affidavit in reply on 14th January, 2004, there were subsequent events. It was stated that certain schemes were sanctioned and also implemented. Those schemes were in the process of implementation under the Resolution dated 29th June, 1998 in the areas deemed to be "difficult areas". It was stated that certain schemes were sanctioned and also implemented. Those schemes were in the process of implementation under the Resolution dated 29th June, 1998 in the areas deemed to be "difficult areas". It is also stated that the areas for which the schemes are being sanctioned and partly implemented are areas not notified in the Government Gazette as difficult areas. SRA, therefore, thought it fit to declare such areas as "difficult areas" under the relevant Clauses of the Regulations. A copy of the said notification is annexed to the additional affidavit. About 55 per cent of population of the Mumbai City and Mumbai Suburban District is residing in slums. Out of the said area, about 25 per cent of the slum population is occupying the lands required for Vital Public Projects. 13. On behalf of respondent No. 1, an affidavit in reply is filed by Deputy Secretary, Housing Department, Mantralaya on 19th January, 2004. It was stated that respondent No. 3-SRA was established vide Government Resolution dated 16th December, 1995 under section 3-A(1) of the Act. The said respondent (respondent No. 3) has been charged with the duty to carry out various works relating to slum rehabilitation schemes. Respondent No. 3 is also declared as Planning Authority by the State Government under the MRTP Act. It was, therefore, competent to exercise powers in accordance with the provisions of the Act as also MRTP Act. It was then stated that Honble the Chief Minister of Maharashtra is the Chairman of both MMRDA and SRA. Respondent No. 5 submitted proposals which were scrutinised by technical officers working under the supervision of Chief Executive Officer, SRA who sanctioned the scheme under the delegated powers. The scheme was rejected as there was non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the tender invited by MMRDA. Thereafter, respondent No. 5 has been awarded work of construction of tenements for PAPs by SRA by following proper procedure prescribed for it. It was stated that since the encroachers of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) were to be removed on account of the orders passed by this Court and since this Court desired that the said encroachers should be rehabilitated, the work has been undertaken for rehabilitation of the slum dwellers of SGNP. It is stated that MMRDA and SRA are multi member bodies. It is stated that MMRDA and SRA are multi member bodies. Honble the Chief Minister of Maharashtra happens to be the Chairman and is not solely responsible for the decisions taken by the two bodies. Most of the executive powers are delegated to the Chief Executives of these bodies and the decisions to grant sanction are taken at Chief Executive Officer SRA level. The allegations of the petitioners, therefore, are ill founded and misconceived. 14. Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit on 2nd January, 2004, through Executive Engineer, stating therein that in accordance with the provisions of MRTP Act, SRA has been granted status of Planning Authority for slum rehabilitation and for implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes in Brihanmumbai. It is also stated that CEO, SRA has been delegated powers exercisable under MRTP Act by the State Government. SRA under the D.C. Regulations, has, therefore, power to Award TDR. The action taken by SRA, hence, cannot be said to be illegal. 15. Three affidavits have been filed by respondent No. 4 contesting the petition. It is stated that respondent No. 4 was issued a letter of intent on 2nd August, 2003. Respondent No. 4 has given the details and particulars regarding grant of TDR. He has also raised objection as to locus standi of the petitioners contending that this is not a public interest litigation. There was delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Court. 16. On merits, according to him, all actions taken by the respondent-authorities are legal, lawful and in consonance with law. The deponent has stated that the petition had been filed on vague and baseless allegations without there being sufficient particulars and is required to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 17. Respondent No. 5 has filed counter though its partner stating that the said respondent had conveyed and transferred to SRA, respondent No. 3, a large plot of land admeasuring 1,72,263.01 sq. mtrs. In terms of D.C. Regulations 33(1) and Clause 3.11 of Appendix IV in lieu of transfer of land, respondent No. 5 was entitled to certain benefits and if those benefits have been granted to respondent No. 5, the action cannot be termed illegal or unlawful. 18. Respondent No. 6 has filed affidavits dealing with the plot of land at Dahisar which has been taken by for development in accordance with the proposal accepted by SRA, respondent No. 3. 18. Respondent No. 6 has filed affidavits dealing with the plot of land at Dahisar which has been taken by for development in accordance with the proposal accepted by SRA, respondent No. 3. He has furnished details regarding the said property. In further affidavit, he has denied that he is an influential person having personal contacts with politicians or bureaucrats including the Minister for housing, Chairman of respondent No. 3 and has taken undue advantage of such relations. 19. Respondent No. 7 has filed affidavit through its Director stating that respondent No. 7 has allotted a plot of Dharavi Division for development under the Regulations and thus he was enhanced to get TDR and the action of SRA cannot be said illegal. He has also challenged the locus of the petitioners. He has contended that all allegations have been made on newspaper reports. He denied that in collusion with officers of respondent No. 3 as also Ministers of respondent No. 1, he had played fraud for personal benefits. 20. An affidavit in rejoinder is filed by petitioner No. 2 for a limited purpose of dealing with an allegation that he had been put up by "somebody". He denied the allegation and reiterated that he had no personal interest in the matter nor did he seek benefit to any party. 21. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. As already indicated hereinabove, the contention of the petitioners is that all actions taken by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are without authority of law, against the provisions of the Act, MRTP Act and D.C. Regulations. All projects have been undertaken by respondent No. 3 SRA with the sole object of giving undue benefits to respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Grant of TDR would result in creating monopoly in favour of those respondents. It would neither be in the interest of slum-dwellers and PAPs for whose benefit the schemes have been prepared, sanctioned and are to be implemented nor in the interest of public authorities as those authorities will be deprived substantial benefits which they would have otherwise obtained, had there been regular process of inviting tenders, consideration of bids and allotment of work on the basis of competitive rates. It was, therefore, submitted that all the actions should be declared illegal, contrary to law and a writ of mandamus be issued to respondent authorities to take appropriate actions in accordance with relevant provisions of law. 22. The respondent-authorities strongly opposed the petition on preliminary objections and also on merits. As far as preliminary objections are concerned, it was conceded that petitioner No. 1 is a social worker and has filed several public interest petitions and social action litigations campaigning against corruption. Petitioner No. 2, however, is not a "social worker" as he claims. The petition has not been filed by him in public interest but with a view to prevent TDRs being released in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 by respondent No. 3-SRA and to ensure that several builders may be able to get higher rates of their TDRs. It was also contended by the respondents that petitioner No. 2 has been branded by this Court in another petition as a person put up by a disgruntled builder. It was, therefore, submitted that petitioner No. 1, who is a well-known social reformer and public leader, should not have allowed himself to be led by petitioner No. 2 whose credentials have been doubted by this Court. 23. It was also contended that there is gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Court. The policy decisions have been taken in remote past in the year 1998. The action challenged in the present petition has been taken pursuant to those decisions. Several steps have been taken by respondent No. 3-SRA as well as by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and after long and unreasonable delay, the petitioners have approached this Court. Therefore, even if this Court is of the view that the petitioners have locus standi, considering the time taken by the petitioners in approaching the Court and steps taken by authorities on the one hand and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 on the other in the meanwhile, this Court may not interfere with the actions challenged in the petition. 24. On merits, by filing a detailed affidavit, respondent No. 3-SRA has asserted that no action taken by respondent No. 3-SRA can be termed illegal, unlawful or improper. 4 to 7 on the other in the meanwhile, this Court may not interfere with the actions challenged in the petition. 24. On merits, by filing a detailed affidavit, respondent No. 3-SRA has asserted that no action taken by respondent No. 3-SRA can be termed illegal, unlawful or improper. On the contrary, the actions taken by respondent No. 3 SRA have resulted in saving several crores of rupees to public exchequer and no fault can be found therein. The contesting respondents have highlighted the circumstances how they would be adversely affected if this Court interferes with the action at this belated stage. It was, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 25. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the grievances raised by the petitioners are not well-founded, petitioners are not entitled to any relief and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 26. So far as locus standi is concerned, it is contended by respondent No. 3-SRA that Resolutions have been passed by respondent No. 3-SRA in accordance with the provisions of the Act, MRTP Act and D.C. Regulations. The petitioners, therefore, cannot challenge the decisions which are in accordance with law. Moreover, the petition is not filed in public interest but with mala fide intention and oblique notice inasmuch as petitioner No. 2 has been set up by builders/developers/traders lobby who are doing business of purchase and sale of TDR/development rights. Though locus of petitioner No. 1 has not been challenged, SRA contended that credentials of petitioner No. 2 have been held to be doubtful by this Court even earlier. In this connection, attention of the Court was invited to PIL No. 827 of 2002 (Manoj Mehta v. State of Maharashtra others)1, wherein acceptance of tenders of certain builders/developers by MMRDA was challenged. It was stated that M/s. Videocon Centres and others had also filed Writ Petition No. 1235 of 2002 against State of Maharashtra and others challenging tenders of certain builders and developers and not accepting tender of the petitioner. SRA filed an affidavit in reply stating full and complete facts and particulars and submitting that the action was legal and valid. Both the petitions, i.e., PIL No. 827 of 2002 and Writ Petition No. 1235 of 2002 were placed together for hearing. By a common judgment and order dated 30th August, 2002, both the petitions were dismissed. SRA filed an affidavit in reply stating full and complete facts and particulars and submitting that the action was legal and valid. Both the petitions, i.e., PIL No. 827 of 2002 and Writ Petition No. 1235 of 2002 were placed together for hearing. By a common judgment and order dated 30th August, 2002, both the petitions were dismissed. Some of the contentions which were not taken by M/s. Videocon were raised by the present petitioner No. 2 which were commented by the Court, inter alia, observing that there was substance in the submission of the contesting respondent that the petition had been filed "at the behest of Videocon" and the contention that the petitioner was put up by a disgruntled builder had substance. Accordingly the petition was dismissed with compensatory cots of Rs. 50,000/-. 27. We are, prima facie, satisfied that the contention of respondent No. 3-SRA that petitioner No. 2 is not a "public spirited individual" and has not approached this Court pro bono publico is not totally ill-founded or misconceived. It is further clear from the fact that petitioner No. 2 has himself confused as to what he wants from this Court. On the one hand, he contended that the policy of giving TDRs would create monopoly in favour of owners/builders/ landholders who would exploit the situation by selling TDRs at high rates and no such policy, therefore, be permitted to be implemented by "State". But on the other hand, he appears to contend that such schemes should be implemented by inviting tenders, calling competitive bids and on the basis of rates quoted by the bidders. Again, though petitioner No. 2 has alleged that the impugned action has resulted in creating monopoly of TDR in favour of respondent No. 4 who will take undue and undeserving advantage by selling TDR at a higher rate, the affidavit of respondent No. 3-SRA shows to the contrary. It is stated that before the schemes of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were approved by respondent No. 3 SRA, the rate of TDR was Rs. 800/- to 850/- per sq.ft. As a result of sanction of schemes and partial release of TDR in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, the said rate has gone down to Rs. 500/- to Rs. 550/- per sq. ft. It has thus benefited the common man. 800/- to 850/- per sq.ft. As a result of sanction of schemes and partial release of TDR in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 7, the said rate has gone down to Rs. 500/- to Rs. 550/- per sq. ft. It has thus benefited the common man. The allegation of respondent No. 3-SRA is that builders/developers lobby which had purchased TDRs at a higher rate of Rs. 800/- to Rs. 850/- per sq. ft. have put up petitioner No. 2 in the name of public interest litigation with a view to prevent TDRs to be released in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 by respondent No. 3-SRA and other builders/developers so that the builders fetch higher price of the TDRs. It is also submitted on behalf of respondent No. 3 SRA that the factum of reduction of TDR rates per sq.ft. has not been denied by petitioner No. 2. This Court, therefore, feels that the contention as to locus standi of petitioner No. 2 and the allegation that he is not actuated in public interest has substance and cannot be totally ignored. 28. In view of the fact, however, that it is not disputed by respondents or any of them, that petitioner No. 1 is a public spirited individual, social worker, crusader against corrupt means taken by bureaucrates, public officers, statutory authorities and politicians and had approached this Court as also various other courts by filing several writ petitions, we do not intend to adopt short-cut of throwing away the petition only on the ground that petitioner No. 2 is having doubtful credentials in past as also in the present litigation. 29. The only contention raised by respondent No. 3-SRA against petitioner No. 1 is that he should not have allowed himself to become an "instrument" in the hands of petitioner No. 2 without ascertaining true and correct facts. In our opinion, therefore, it would be appropriate, if we do not dismiss the petition only on the ground of locus standi, particularly when the allegations are that there was a scam of several crores of rupees. 30. The second preliminary objection relates to delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. On that count, respondent No. 3-SRA, in its affidavit stated that the petitioners have challenged Resolutions of 1998 by filing a petition on 29th December, 2003. It was stated that in December, 1995. 30. The second preliminary objection relates to delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. On that count, respondent No. 3-SRA, in its affidavit stated that the petitioners have challenged Resolutions of 1998 by filing a petition on 29th December, 2003. It was stated that in December, 1995. SRA came to be established under section 3-A of the Act. A policy decision was taken vide Resolution dated January 15, 1998 for implementation for schemes of Vital Public Projects under Regulation 33(10), of the Regulations. In June, 1998 by a Resolution No. 7.7.6, it was decided that whenever an owner shows his willingness to implement a scheme under Regulation 33(10) for slum-dwellers affected by Vital Public Project, respondent No. 3-SRA may sanction such scheme under Clause 3.11 and if rehabilitation project of a slum is located on land belonging to public authority and needed for Vital Public Project, he would be entitled to TDRs. A provision was also made for declaration of difficult areas in Clause 3.19. According to respondent No. 3-SRA, the scheme submitted by respondent No. 6 under Clause 3.11 read with 3.5 and 3.19 of Regulation 33(10) of Regulations was sanctioned and a letter of intent was issued to him on 15th January, 2003. Similarly, scheme submitted by respondent No. 5 was sanctioned and he was issued a letter of intent on 24th January, 2003. Likewise, scheme of respondent No. 7 was sanctioned and he was issued a letter of intent on 18th February, 2003. Scheme of respondent No. 4 was sanctioned by respondent No. 3-SRA and he was issued a letter of intent on 2nd August, 2003. It is, therefore, stated by respondent No. 3-SRA that in accordance with the provisions of Regulations and policy decisions, steps were taken by respondent No. 3-SRA from January, 2003. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have already started construction of rehabilitation of hutment dwellers and respondent No. 3 SRA has recommended issuance of development rights certificates to respondent No. 2 for land conveyed and construction DRA in respect of construction already carried out by respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Thus, there is undue delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Court. The petitioners have challenged resolutions of 1998 i.e. after about five years from the passing of those Resolutions by respondent No. 3 SRA. 4 to 7. Thus, there is undue delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Court. The petitioners have challenged resolutions of 1998 i.e. after about five years from the passing of those Resolutions by respondent No. 3 SRA. Considering the schemes submitted and sanctioned by respondent No. 3 SRA also, there was long and unexplained delay. 31. The contesting respondents have also in their affidavits stated that there was gross and unreasonable delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. Respondent No. 4 in three affidavit has stated as to the steps taken by him pursuant to first commencement certificate granted in his favour on August 20, 2003. He inter alia, stated that he had proposed 34 buildings and construction work of all 34 buildings was in progress. He has also placed on record status and progress reports along with one of the affidavits. He has also put on record details regarding release of TDR stating that 100 per cent TDR has not been released by the authorities as soon as the scheme is sanctioned and it is in a phase-wise manner. 32. Respondent No. 5 in his affidavit stated that he had transferred a large plot of land to SRA after the scheme was sanctioned. He also said what was stated by respondent No. 4 that TDR would be released in his favour in a phased manner. According to him, he commenced construction activity in July, 2003 of 58 wings of 8 buildings. According to him, 58 wings are under construction at different levels. 33. Respondent No. 6 in his counter stated that he had transferred land in favour of respondent No. 3 SRA. SRA has released TDR in favour of respondent No. 6 and the details have been furnished. 34. Respondent No. 7 stated that under the project, he was required to construct three buildings of which one will have two wings respondent No. 7 commenced work of one building having two wings and it was at the plinth level. Considering that fact. TDR has been released in his favour. 35. From the above affidavits, it is clear that there is considerable delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. One of the prayers of the petitioners is to quash and set aside Resolutions passed by respondent No. 3-SRA. Those Resolutions are of 1998. Considering that fact. TDR has been released in his favour. 35. From the above affidavits, it is clear that there is considerable delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. One of the prayers of the petitioners is to quash and set aside Resolutions passed by respondent No. 3-SRA. Those Resolutions are of 1998. Actions which have been taken by respondent No. 3-SRA are in pursuance of those Resolutions. But even otherwise, action of relocation and rehabilitation of PAPs had been taken up for consideration by respondent No. 3-SRA and several steps have been taken from January, 2003 onwards. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 had shown their willingness to abide by terms and conditions of the Regulations and also of the scheme and necessary steps have been taken. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 acted on the basis of the Resolutions of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 acted on the basis of the Resolutions of respondent No. 3-SRA and schemes were sanctioned. Land was transferred in favour of respondent No. 3-SRA by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and construction work had also started. The petitioners approached this Court by the end of December, 2003 and by that time, several steps had been taken. In our opinion, therefore, this is also one of the considerations which the Court will keep in mind while deciding the question raised before us. We are, however, not inclined to dismiss the petition without dealing with the questions raised therein. 36. On merits, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 SRA referred to the Guidelines for Implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes in Greater Mumbai. The Counsel invited our attention to the "Genesis" by referring to those guidelines published in December, 1997. It is stated in the guidelines that over 50 per cent of the population of Mumbai and nearby area live in unhygienic, deplorable and unsafe huts or slums. Those slums have come up on private land (50%), land of State Government (25%), land of Municipal Corporation (20%) and land of Central Government and Housing Boards (5%). It was also stated that slum pockets spread throughout Greater Mumbai occupy prime real estates. The genesis also highlights steps taken by Governmental authorities from 1970 onwards. Those slums have come up on private land (50%), land of State Government (25%), land of Municipal Corporation (20%) and land of Central Government and Housing Boards (5%). It was also stated that slum pockets spread throughout Greater Mumbai occupy prime real estates. The genesis also highlights steps taken by Governmental authorities from 1970 onwards. It then proceeds to state that the Government of Maharashtra had advanced a comprehensive Slum Rehabilitation Scheme by introducing an innovative concept of using land as a resource and allowing incentive Floor Space Index (FSI) in the form of tenements for sale in open market for cross-subsidisation of the slum rehabilitation tenements which could be provided free to slum dwellers through necessary statutory amendments. The Government therefore, established Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to work as Planning Authority for all slums in Greater Mumbai and to facilitate Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. It also deals with the exercise undertaken by High Power study Group (Afzapulkar Committee) and recommendations made by the said Group. The Government in Urban Development Department sanctioned the Development Control Regulations (DCR) for Greater Mumbai, 1991 under Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. They were made operative from March 25, 1991. Regulation 33(10) deals with re-development of slums through promoters like owners/developers/co-operative housing societies of slum-dwellers/Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO). The guidelines also provide procedure for submission, processing and approval of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Regulation 33(10) provides for development of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. Clause 3 of Appendix IV deals with "Rehabilitation and free sale component". It lays down policy of the authority to extend benefits of free sale components in normal areas and in difficult areas. The Act of 1971 has been enacted with a view to make better provision for improvement and clearance of slum areas in the State and their re-development and for matters connected therewith as observed in the Preamble of the Act. The provisions of the said Act, therefore, have to be interpreted keeping in view of the object underlying the Act as also the MRTP Act. In (State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo Pandharinath Dhole and others)2, 1980 Bom.C.R. 590, a Division Bench of this Court observed that both the enactments must be read harmoniously and effect must be given to the object of both the Acts. They seek to provide solution and remedies to "ever emerging problems of modern times." 37. In (State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo Pandharinath Dhole and others)2, 1980 Bom.C.R. 590, a Division Bench of this Court observed that both the enactments must be read harmoniously and effect must be given to the object of both the Acts. They seek to provide solution and remedies to "ever emerging problems of modern times." 37. Keeping in view the relevant provisions of laws, Rules, Regulations and policy decisions, respondent No. 3-SRA has sanctioned several schemes in exercise of powers conferred on it under Clauses 3.11 read with 3.19 and 3.5 of Appendix IV of Regulation 33(10) of Regulations. Particulars of all those schemes have been mentioned in detail by respondent No. 3-SRA in its affidavit. The allegation regarding distribution of State largess and alleged discrimination and extension of undue benefits in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have been emphatically denied by respondent No. 3 SRA. It is stated that the allegations were "totally unsustainable". About 27 schemes have been sanctioned by respondent No. 3 SRA and it was stated that whoever had made an application showing an open plot, respondent No. 3-SRA had approved the scheme after investigating the title. SRA has not rejected anybodys offer. It was also the case of SRA and MMRDA was giving cash component. Several persons, therefore, did not approach SRA as policy of SRA was not to give cash component. It was only after MMRDA stopped giving cash component that owners/occupiers/builders/co-operative societies started approaching SRA. In the affidavit, it was also stated as to how SRA has acted in saving public exchequer and Government fund to the extent of more than Rs. 100 crores and by not granting benefit of cash component. Wild allegations made by the petitioners against SRA have been strongly controverted and objected by SRA. It was stated that reckless allegations made against the statutory authority were uncalled for and ought not to have been levelled. Regarding resolutions of 1998 being contrary to the Regulations, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 3-SRA submitted that there is no provision in the MRTP Act or in the Rules or Regulations against creation of buffer stock of houses/tenements. There is neither express prohibition nor even implied bar. Looking to the ground reality also, no such interpretation of the provisions of the Act or Regulations is permissible. There is neither express prohibition nor even implied bar. Looking to the ground reality also, no such interpretation of the provisions of the Act or Regulations is permissible. In the guidelines of 1998 to which reference has already been made, it was observed that more than 50 per cent of residents are spread over on unauthorised land and substantial portion of public land has been encroached upon. Keeping in view the humane problem of resettlement and re-location of slum dwellers steps have been taken by Government, a special Act has been enacted for re-settlement and re-location of hutment dwellers, authorities have been constituted and at various levels the problem was considered. In several litigations, orders have been passed by competent courts directing eviction of hutment dwellers/unauthorised occupants/encroachers and by ordering Governmental authorities to rehabilitate and relocate them. It was, therefore, incumbent on the State Authorities to take appropriate steps. If in the light of the above facts, actions have been taken by respondent No. 3, and that too keeping in view the relevant provisions of law, no complaint can be made against such actions, particularly when the petitioners have approached this Court in Public Interest Litigation specifically stating that they have no individual interest in the matter. 38. The contention that the SRA can only formulate scheme for rehabilitation of slum areas and cannot implement/execute such scheme is equally ill-founded in view of the provisions of section 3-A of the Act. The Act of 1971 came to be amended by Act of IV of 1996 and Chapter 1-A came to be inserted. The said chapter deals with "Slum Rehabilitation Scheme". The title of section 3-A is "Slum Rehabilitation Authority for implementing Slum Rehabilitation Scheme". Sub-section (3) of section 3-A reads thus : "3. The powers, duties and functions of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall be.--- (a) to survey and review existing position regarding slum areas; (b) to formulate schemes for rehabilitation of slum areas; (c) to get the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme implemented; (d) to do all such other acts and things as may be necessary for achieving the objects of rehabilitation of slums." (emphasis supplied) 39. It is rightly submitted on behalf of respondent No. 3-SRA that resolutions which have been challenged in the petition are in the nature of policy decisions. It is rightly submitted on behalf of respondent No. 3-SRA that resolutions which have been challenged in the petition are in the nature of policy decisions. Normally, therefore, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court would not interfere with policy matters unless the Court is satisfied that the policy formulated by an "instrumentality" of State is unconstitutional, ultra vires a statute or otherwise arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable. When the policy decisions are in furtherance of interest of hutment dwellers and provides for rehabilitation of slum dwellers occupying land of public project by no stretch of imagination such action can be held to be unlawful or improper. It, therefore, cannot successfully be contended that the action deserves interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 40. Respondent No. 3-SRA in its affidavit has also elaborately dealt with schemes submitted by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and release of TDR phase wise. It is denied by respondent No. 3-SRA that the scheme will have adverse effect on infrastructural facilities due to creation of vertical slums instead of horizontal slums. According to respondent No. 3-SRA, schemes have been prepared by respondent Nos. 4 to 7. They have been considered by respondent No. 3-SRA and have been sanctioned after application of mind. By granting sanction to the scheme submitted by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and construction of tenements for hutment dwellers and occupants of slums at public places, the land occupied by hutment dwellers will become available for public purpose and slum dwellers will be rehabilitated/relocated. This is what the respondent authorities are expected and required to do. This is the policy of the Government. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention of the petitioners that instead of one type of slums, the scheme would result in another type of slums. It is also not correct that the construction will be of inferior quality. Obviously the respondent authorities and particularly officers of respondent No. 3-SRA will perform their functions discharge their duties and ensure that the schemes undertaken by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 would be properly implemented in letter and spirit. It also cannot be overlooked that release of TDR is in phase-wise manner and thus there is control and monitoring by respondent No. 3-SRA over the scheme. 4 to 7 would be properly implemented in letter and spirit. It also cannot be overlooked that release of TDR is in phase-wise manner and thus there is control and monitoring by respondent No. 3-SRA over the scheme. If there is any breach or departure by respondents in implementing the scheme properly, appropriate action(s) can always be taken by respondent No. 3-SRA. 41. As to grant of TDR to respondent Nos. 4 to 7 being contrary to Regulations, when no identification of "difficult areas" is made and there is no declaration by issuing notification under Clause 3.19 of Regulation 33(10), respondent No. 3-SRA urged that it is not the requirement of the Regulations. The Regulations do not provide for declaration of difficult areas before grant of TDR. Clause 3.5 of Regulation 33(10) states that Dharavi is a difficult area. It also states that other such areas i.e. difficult areas would be as may be notified by SRA and where the rehab component would relate to such areas, additional TDR would be released. Clause 3.11 states that if rehabilitation project of a slum located on land belonging to public authority and needed for a vital public purpose is taken up on an unencumbered plot in addition to the rehabilitation and free sale components. TDR for the area of the land spared for this purpose shall also be sanctioned to the owner of unencumbered plot. 42. In the instant case, as stated by respondent No. 3-SRA rehabilitation of hutment dwellers/slum dwellers relates to the areas of Anik, Chandivali, Dahisar and Dharavi and hence respondents are entitled to additional benefits. Respondent No. 3-SRA has also placed reliance on the guidelines and notification dated 1st April, 1998 providing for "deemed difficult area" under Clause 3.19 of Regulation 33(10) of Regulations. It is also stated that the declaration has already been made as to "difficult areas" and before the declaration was made, TDRs actually released so far in respect of construction was less than one and in no case, in its entirety i.e. 1:33 and hence even on that ground the action cannot be said to be illegal. 43. In a subsequent affidavit, dated 4th February, 2004, respondent No. 3-SRA stated that by a notification dated 23rd January, 2004, SRA had declared several areas as "difficult areas". A copy of the notification is also annexed to the affidavit. 44. 43. In a subsequent affidavit, dated 4th February, 2004, respondent No. 3-SRA stated that by a notification dated 23rd January, 2004, SRA had declared several areas as "difficult areas". A copy of the notification is also annexed to the affidavit. 44. According to the affidavit of respondent No. 3-SRA. Airport Authority of India itself requires more than 30,000 to 35,000 tenements whereas all the four schemes by respondent Nos. 4 to 7 would result in availability of 12000 tenements. Thus, considering the requirement of Airport Authority of India alone, the tenements would not be sufficient. It cannot be disputed that such a project would be vitally affected public project and hence the action of respondent No. 3-SRA of granting benefits under the relevant clause of difficult area cannot be objected. 45. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 SRA referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in (Sachidanand Pandey and another v. State of West Bengal and others)3, 1987(2) S.C.C. 295 . Our attention was invited to paragraphs 46, 59, 61 and 62 of the reported decision wherein observations were made in concurring judgment by Khalid, J., pointing out the circumstances and need of restraint on the part of public interest litigants as well as courts in exercising power in such litigation. He also referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in (5 M T Consultants, Secunderabad v. S.Y. Nawab and another)4, 2003(8) S.C.C. 100 for a proposition that grant of permission to a party on trial basis cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. Public authorities can take such action and if it is not irrational or unreasonable, in public interest litigation, a Court should not interfere with such project. 46. Reference was also made to (Ms. Kasturi Lal Laksmi Reddy etc. v. State of Jammu Kashmir and another)5, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1992 for a submission that though the discretion of the Government in granting largess is not absolute no interference is called for unless the action is arbitrary or irrational. In (Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal and others)6, J.T. 2003(9) S.C. 140, it was indicated by the Apex Court that courts should be mindful that a public interest litigation should not become "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "policies interest litigation" or "paise income litigation". 47. In (Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal and others)6, J.T. 2003(9) S.C. 140, it was indicated by the Apex Court that courts should be mindful that a public interest litigation should not become "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or "policies interest litigation" or "paise income litigation". 47. In paragraph 12, the Court stated : "Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and cicumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armory of law for delivering social justice to the citizens. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vendatta. As indicated above, Court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the Court is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be used for oblique considerations. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs." 48. In the light of well-settled principles enunciated by the Supreme Court and keeping in view the action taken by respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 3-SRA and mindful of the perennial problem of re-location and rehabilitation of hutment dwellers occupying prime public land essentially required for public purposes and vital public projects, actions taken by respondent No. 3-SRA in sanctioning schemes of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and grant of benefits of TDR at phase level cannot, in our considered opinion, be held illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, improper or otherwise objectionable. We, therefore, see no substance in the petition. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 4 to 7 and grant of benefits of TDR at phase level cannot, in our considered opinion, be held illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, improper or otherwise objectionable. We, therefore, see no substance in the petition. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances and in the light of what we have observed in the earlier part of the judgment, there shall be no order as to costs so far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned. The petitioner No. 2, however, will bear his own costs and also shall pay costs to all the respondents which is quantified at Rs. 35,000/- i.e. Rs. 5,000/- to each of the respondents. Interim directions issued by the learned Vacation Judge on December 30, 2003 are hereby vacated. Parties to act on an ordinary copy of this judgment duly authenticated by the Associate/Private Secretary. -----