Judgment : (R.D. Dhanuka, J.) Rule; with the consent of counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith. With the consent of counsel and at their request, the petition is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. This Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeks a declaration that an ex-parte order dated 9 December 2004 passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and an order dated 15 October 2009 passed by the High Power Committee are unlawful and seeks a declaration that the Petitioner is entitled to one permanent residential tenement under the redevelopment scheme of Respondent No.6 Society and possession of the tenement. 3. Prior to 1993, the Petitioner was residing in Room No.541 admeasuring 10 X 10 sq.ft. at Indira Nagar Chawl, Indira Gandhi Rahiwashi Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) situate at CTS No. 608/2 (Part), Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. The property bearing CTS No. 608/2 (Part) was declared and was notified as a Slum under the provisions of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971. The residents and slum dwellers decided to form a Cooperative Housing Society in the name of Smt. Indira Gandhi Rahiwashi Sewa Sangh Co-operative Housing Society, Respondent No. 6 herein. 4. On 19 July 2002, the Additional Collector (Encroachments) and Controller of Slums, Bombay issued a list of eligible slum dwellers in respect of the said property to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority. The name of the Petitioner was shown at Serial No. 293 and her structure was shown as a censused or protected structure. 5. On 24 July 2002 about 70% of the slum dwellers of Respondent No.6 society executed an agreement in favour of the developer Respondent No.5 herein, so as to permit it to undertake redevelopment and reconstruct the entire area as per policies and guidelines for SRA Projects. The name and signature of the Petitioner was at Serial No. 93 and that of Respondent No.8 at Serial No.92 of the said agreement. Under the said agreement, the 5th Respondent agreed to grant to the members alternate rebuilt, regular and pucca residential tenements admeasuring 225 sq.ft. carpet area, free of cost in place of and in lieu of slum structures held by the Petitioner and other members of the said society. 6. Under the said agreement, the 5th Respondent agreed to grant to the members alternate rebuilt, regular and pucca residential tenements admeasuring 225 sq.ft. carpet area, free of cost in place of and in lieu of slum structures held by the Petitioner and other members of the said society. 6. In or about October 2002, the Petitioner was handed over possession of tenement No.107 situate at 2nd Floor, New Transit Camp, Anant Kanekar Marg, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 as a temporary transit accommodation. The Petitioner occupied the transit accommodation in 2003 till it was demolished. In or about September/October 2005, Respondent No.6 Society handed over possession of Room No.10, ‘C’ Wing, on the ground floor, by way of permanent alternate accommodation. It is the case of the Petitioner that since the said flat allotted to the Petitioner did not have proper amenities, the Petitioner could not shift alongwith her family into the tenement and she only shifted her belongings into the allotted tenement. On 15 July 2008 and 28 January 2009, the Petitioner made a complaint to the Chief Executive Officer, SRA about the lack of basic amenities in the permanent alternate accommodation handed over to the Petitioner and sought justice. 7. It is the case of the Petitioner that she found that Respondent No.7 was claiming to be the allottee of Room No.10 on the ground floor of ‘C’ Wing of the 6th Respondent Society and was harassing the Petitioner to shift her belongings out of the room. By letters dated 25 February 2009 and 12 March 2009, the Petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the Chief Executive Officer, SRA. On 12 March 2009, the Petitioner filed a complaint/application (606 of 2009) before the High Power Committee claiming permanent allotment of one residential structure in the newly constructed building. The Developer and the proposed society filed an affidavit on 15 October 2009 before the High Power Committee. It was submitted that the Petitioner was in possession of Tenement No. 405 in ‘C’ Wing of rehab building No.3. 8. Before the High Power Committee, it was stated by the authority and the developer that though the petitioner was initially held eligible at Sr. It was submitted that the Petitioner was in possession of Tenement No. 405 in ‘C’ Wing of rehab building No.3. 8. Before the High Power Committee, it was stated by the authority and the developer that though the petitioner was initially held eligible at Sr. No. 293 of Annexure II issued by the Additional Collector on 19 July 2002, supplementary annexure II dated 9 December 2004 was issued by the Secretary (SRA) and the name of the petitioner was deleted as her structure was not on site. Before the High Power Committee the Authority contended that though the name of the petitioner had been shown as eligible at Sr. No. 293, she has been subsequently held ineligible by an order dated 9 December 2004 passed by the Secretary (SRA) on the ground that at Sr. No. 294 of the said annexure II an identical name as that of the petitioner has been shown as eligible and the society and developer had allotted tenement No. 405 in C Wing of the rehab building and that the structure of the petitioner was not on site. Considering the affidavit in reply filed by the Chief Promoter of the society, the High Power Committee observed that the petitioner had already been allotted rehab tenement No. 405 in C Wing of the rehab building No. 3 as per her eligibility which was decided by the competent authority in annexure II at Sr. No. 293, and the Petitioner is not entitled to claim another rehab tenement under the SR scheme. The High Power Committee accordingly rejected the application filed by the petitioner which gave rise to the filing of this petition. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner came to know about the order dated 9 December 2004 passed by the Secretary (SRA) for the first time when the said order was referred to by the authority before the High Power Committee. The Petitioner thereafter obtained a copy of the said order. In the said order dated 9 December 2004, SRA has relied upon a letter dated 6 November 2004 issued by the Developer stating that 34 huts of the hutment dwellers were not found on the site. The Secretary (SRA) deleted names of 34 hutment dwellers from annexure II. The name of the petitioner is reflected in the said list of hutments cancelled by the Secretary (SRA). 10. The Secretary (SRA) deleted names of 34 hutment dwellers from annexure II. The name of the petitioner is reflected in the said list of hutments cancelled by the Secretary (SRA). 10. Counsel appearing for the petitioner made following submissions: (1) The petitioner was already declared eligible for permanent alternate accommodation and her name had appeared in annexure II at Sr. No. 293 issued by the Additional Collector (Encroachment) and the Controller of Slums. The Secretary (SRA) could not have cancelled the said allotment behind the back of the petitioner without giving any notice and without complying with the principles of natural justice. Even otherwise, in the said order passed by the Secretary (SRA) it was made clear that if those 34 persons were found to be eligible, then rehabilitation would be the sole responsibility of the developer. (2) Tenement No. 405 in C Wing in Building No. 2 was not allotted to the petitioner but is allotted to respondent no. 8 whose name appears at Sr. No. 294 in annexure II certificate dated 19 July 2002. The names of both the parties are reflected at Sr No. 293 and 294 being independent and distinct occupants and were entitled to be allotted separate and independent permanent alternate accommodation. The Petitioner has no objection if tenement no. 405 in C Wing of rehab building no. 4 is alloted and handed over to the petitioner as stated in the affidavit dated 5 March 2012 filed by the society in this proceeding. 11. On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the society submitted that the name of the petitioner at Sr. No. 293 of annexure II was subsequently cancelled by an order dated 9 December 2004 passed by the Secretary (SRA). It is submitted that the name of the petitioner was also shown at Sr. no. 294 as eligible and therefore, the society and the developer had allotted rehab tenement No. 405 in C Wing of rehab building to the petitioner. However, in the affidavit in reply it is submitted by the respondent society that the developer as well as the society had already allotted rehab tenement No. 405 in C Wing of rehab building no. 4 to the petitioner and she had handed over possession of the said rehab tenement to respondent no. 8 herein, who is the brother in law of the petitioner. 4 to the petitioner and she had handed over possession of the said rehab tenement to respondent no. 8 herein, who is the brother in law of the petitioner. It is further submitted that tenement No. 405 came to be allotted to the petitioner by draw of lots and the petitioner is in possession of the said rehab tenement No. 405, C Wing of Rehab Building No. 3. 12. The record produced by the parties in the present proceedings would indicate that the name of the petitioner was shown at Sr. No. 293 in annexure II issued by the Additional Collector (Encroachments) and Controller of Slums. The name of respondent no. 8 was shown at Sr. No. 294. It is thus clear that the petitioner and respondent no. 8 were both found to be eligible to be allotted separate and distinct permanent alternate accommodation in respect of censused or protected structures held by them. No notice nor hearing was given by the Secretary (SRA) to the petitioner before deleting the name of the petitioner from annexure II and before passing the impugned order dated 9 December 2004. From a perusal of the said order, it is clear that the said order was passed at the instance of the developer. Hence, the order dated 9 December 2004 was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and is required to be set aside. 13. The affidavits filed by the society would also indicate that there are several inconsistencies in the stand taken by the society/developer in so far as allotment of permanent alternate accommodation to the petitioner is concerned. In the affidavit filed before the High Power Committee, it is stated that the petitioner was allotted tenement no. 405 in C Wing of rehab building no. 3 and the tenement was allotted by draw of lots. It is stated that the sister of the petitioner had been residing in the said rehab tenement. In the affidavit dated 5 March 2012 filed in the present proceedings, it is submitted by the society that the developer and the society had already allotted rehab tenement no. 405 in C Wing of rehab building no. 4 to the petitioner and she had handed over the possession of the said tenement to her brother in law, respondent no. 8 herein. 405 in C Wing of rehab building no. 4 to the petitioner and she had handed over the possession of the said tenement to her brother in law, respondent no. 8 herein. It was submitted before the High Power Committee by the society that the name of the petitioner was already deleted from annexure II by the order dated 9 December 2004. 14. It is thus clear that on the one hand, the society has submitted that the eligibility of the petitioner was already cancelled on 9 December 2004 and on the other hand it is submitted that the petitioner was already allotted tenement No. 405 in C Wing of building no. 4 or building no. 3 which was in possession of either the sister of the petitioner or brother in law of the petitioner. 15. Respondent no. 8 has filed a separate affidavit in this proceedings stating that by a letter dated 9 February 2004, the 8th respondent was allotted tenement no. 405 of C Wing in rehab building no. 2 and that he is in actual and physical possession of the said tenement till date. It is stated that respondent no. 8 is entitled to the said permanent alternate accommodation in his own right. 16. We are of the view that the name of the petitioner has been illegally deleted by the Secretary (SRA) without complying with the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner is entitled to independent and distinct permanent alternate accommodation in her own right. The order dated 9 December 2004 passed by the Secretary (SRA) makes it clear that if the persons whose names were deleted from annexure II of the said order, are found eligible, rehabilitation would be the sole responsibility of the developer. We are therefore, of the view that the developer is liable to provide permanent alternate accommodation to the petitioner as per the scheme. We also make it clear that respondent no. 8 is independently entitled to separate permanent alternate accommodation whose name is separately shown at Sr. No. 294 of annexure II. 17. We, therefore, pass the following order: (a) The Additional Collector (Encroachment) and the Controller of Slums as well as Slum Rehabilitation Authority are directed to enforce the slum rehabilitation scheme in respect of C.T.S. No. 608/2 (Part) of village Bandra by directing respondent no. No. 294 of annexure II. 17. We, therefore, pass the following order: (a) The Additional Collector (Encroachment) and the Controller of Slums as well as Slum Rehabilitation Authority are directed to enforce the slum rehabilitation scheme in respect of C.T.S. No. 608/2 (Part) of village Bandra by directing respondent no. 5 i.e. Housing Development & Improvement India Private Limited to provide permanent alternate accommodation to the petitioner of the area permissible under the said scheme within eight weeks from the date of the petitioner submitting an authenticated copy of this order. (b) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (c) There shall be no order as to costs. (d) The matter be placed on board after eight weeks for reporting compliance of this order by respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5.