JUDGMENT : MANISH PITALE, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petition, alleging that the manner in which the impugned minutes of decisions dated 07.10.2024 and 15.07.2024, as also the order dated 11.10.2024, have been issued by the respondents, demonstrates that the respondent-State and statutory authorities have already taken a decision to terminate the appointment of the petitioner as developer for redevelopment of a particular piece and parcel of plot, rendering a proceeding pending under Section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as a mere formality, thereby violating the valuable rights vested in the petitioner. It is alleged that respondent Nos.4 to 8 have acted in concert with the said statutory authorities i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 3, to illegally benefit respondent No.9, the developer, who is sought to be brought in by the said respondents in a clandestine manner to take over the redevelopment project. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that initially, only the final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 were challenged in the present petition because of willful suppression of material facts by respondent No.1-State from this Court. It was only when documents were obtained under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the RTI Act) that the impugned minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and order dated 11.10.2024 came to light, requiring the petitioner to extensively amend the present petition, in order to further demonstrate the arbitrary and malicious conduct of respondents. 3. The petitioner was appointed as developer under the Act for redevelopment of all those pieces and parcels of plots bearing CTS No.1322/1 (pt) of village Versova and some adjoining land, which entailed redevelopment for the benefit of 259 slum dwellers, who were members of four societies i.e. respondent Nos.4 to 8. Development agreements were executed between the petitioner and the said societies in the years 2004/2005. 4. On 28.11.2006, the competent authority under the Act issued Annexure-II for the societies, as they had consented for the petitioner to be the developer. Subsequently, on 02.09.2011, Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued by respondent No.2-Slum Rehabilitation Authority (hereinafter referred to as the SRA) in favour of the petitioner. 4. On 28.11.2006, the competent authority under the Act issued Annexure-II for the societies, as they had consented for the petitioner to be the developer. Subsequently, on 02.09.2011, Letter of Intent (LOI) was issued by respondent No.2-Slum Rehabilitation Authority (hereinafter referred to as the SRA) in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, despite issuance of LOI, the redevelopment scheme could not be implemented due to certain activities undertaken by respondent No.7-society in collusion with a developer Skyscraper Realty Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as SRPL), who is applicant in Interim Application (Lodging) No.35812 of 2024. 5. On 23.11.2016, upon deposit of land premiums, respondent No.2-SRA issued Intimation of Approval (IOA) on 21.12.2016. The petitioner submits that no objection certificate for height clearance was obtained from Airports Authority of India on 30.09.2019, which is valid upto 29.09.2027. It is claimed that due to change in Development Regulation from DCR 1991 to DCPR 2034, the petitioner was constrained to file an application for revising/conversion of the proposal under DCPR 2034. The petitioner also filed an application for revised LOI and amendment of IOA on 21.12.2019, which is still pending. The petitioner claims that although there had been delay in execution of the redevelopment project, the delay is not attributable to the petitioner. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3-Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of respondent No.2-SRA, on 30.09.2022, on a complaint made by a third party, directed the petitioner to obtain fresh IOA and not to initiate any construction at the site, by cancelling the IOA, which was already issued. The petitioner was constrained to file Writ Petition No.5116 of 2022 before this Court, challenging the said order. 7. On 01.12.2022, the Division Bench of this Court quashed and set aside aforesaid order dated 30.09.2022 and the parties were relegated before respondent No.2-SRA for fresh decision. The petitioner moved this Court again on the ground that the order dated 01.12.2022, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, was not followed in letter and spirit and in fact, a farcical hearing was conducted. 8. In that light, the petitioner filed an application in Writ Petition No.5116 of 2022, wherein this Court prima facie found that the hearing given to the petitioner was all but farcical. 8. In that light, the petitioner filed an application in Writ Petition No.5116 of 2022, wherein this Court prima facie found that the hearing given to the petitioner was all but farcical. In this backdrop, this Court directed respondent No.2-SRA to desist from taking any further action, thereby effectively staying the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act, against the petitioner. Subsequently, this Court passed a further order directing joint demarcation and in that process, disregarding all prior demarcations. This exercise was to be carried out in the presence of all concerned parties. 9. Respondent Nos.5 to 8 and SRPL i.e. the applicant in Interim Application (Lodging) No.35812 of 2024, filed intervention applications in the said Writ Petition No.5116 of 2022. In the meanwhile, the entity with whom the petitioner had entered into joint development agreement i.e. Rajesh Landmark Projects Private Limited (RLPPL), went into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the developments regarding the same have been narrated in the writ petition. 10. It is to be noted that respondent No.1-State took a policy decision by issuing Government Resolution (GR) dated 25.05.2022 for completion of redevelopment projects of slums that had remained stalled for long periods of time due to various reasons. The said GR formulated an Amnesty Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the scheme), in order to ensure that such stalled projects were taken up for expeditious redevelopment by inviting expressions of interest from interested parties, who would have to approach jointly with a lender for expeditious execution of redevelopment under the scheme. 11. Respondent No.4-Asset Care and Reconstruction Enterprises Limited (ACRE) had issued its expression of interest on various dates in the years 2022 and 2023 under the scheme. But, since respondent No.2-SRA was not considering the same, respondent No.4-ACRE filed Writ Petition (Lodging) No.37347 of 2023 before this Court. 12. On 16.01.2023, this Court directed respondent No.2-SRA to dispose of three applications dated 06.05.2022, 18.06.2022 and 15.09.2022, filed by respondent No.4-ACRE, preferably by 28.02.2023. This Court directed that the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 8-societies be given notice, while considering the said applications. 13. It is relevant to note that respondent No.4-ACRE and RLPPL also filed intervention applications in the said pending Writ Petition No.5116 of 2022, filed by the petitioner. On 12.10.2023, the Division Bench of this Court took up the same for consideration, alongwith all intervention applications. 13. It is relevant to note that respondent No.4-ACRE and RLPPL also filed intervention applications in the said pending Writ Petition No.5116 of 2022, filed by the petitioner. On 12.10.2023, the Division Bench of this Court took up the same for consideration, alongwith all intervention applications. On the said date, the Division Bench recorded that the petitioner had given written instructions to its counsel to state that it was agreeable to raise all issues before respondent No.2-SRA, under Section 13(2) of the Act, regarding termination of its appointment as a developer, rather than agitating the same before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5116 of 2022. In that light, by order dated 12.10.2023, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition and the pending applications, with a direction that all parties would be heard by respondent No.2-SRA in the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. 14. In the meanwhile, by GR dated 12.07.2023, a committee of four members was constituted to recommend applications/proposals received under the scheme, formulated under GR dated 25.05.2022 for stalled redevelopment projects. The four members were (i) Secretary/Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary, Housing Department, (ii) CEO of respondent No.2-SRA, (iii) Managing Director, Shivshahi Punarvasan Prakalpa Limited, and (iv) Deputy Secretary, Housing Department. The said Committee received 47 applications under the scheme and such applications, after preliminary scrutiny, were put up for secondary scrutiny and discussion before the four-member committee. The redevelopment project, which is the subject matter of the present petition, was also one of the projects covered under the scheme. 15. In that light, a series of meetings were held on 13.02.2024, 12.03.2024, 16.04.2024 and in the fourth meeting held on 15.07.2024, the said redevelopment project was found to be eligible under the scheme. The application of respondent No.4, as the financial institution under the scheme, was taken up for consideration and a developer called Rossuvalt was to be introduced as the new developer and time was granted for complying with necessary documentation. 16. Thereafter, a meeting of the four-member committee was held on 24.09.2024, when respondent No.4-ACRE stated that in supersession of all previous applications, the name of the new developer was being proposed in the scheme and the proposed said new developer was M/s. Prayoktri Deal Private Limited (PDPL) i.e. respondent No.9 herein. 16. Thereafter, a meeting of the four-member committee was held on 24.09.2024, when respondent No.4-ACRE stated that in supersession of all previous applications, the name of the new developer was being proposed in the scheme and the proposed said new developer was M/s. Prayoktri Deal Private Limited (PDPL) i.e. respondent No.9 herein. The petitioner, through its counsel, objected to the said proposal of respondent No.4-ACRE, submitting that the application was not fit for being included in the scheme and hence, it prayed for the same to be dropped. 17. The representative of the applicant in Interim Application (Lodging) No.35812 of 2024 i.e. SRPL had, in an earlier representation, requested for rejection of application of respondent No.4-ACRE under the scheme. However, on 03.10.2024, the said applicant sent a communication to the committee, stating that it had no objection for appointment of respondent No.9 as the new developer and supported the said respondent. The representative of RLPPL informed that it was in insolvency process before National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). 18. It is to be noted here that respondent No.4-ACRE had moved the committee and on 15.07.2024, impugned minutes of decision were passed by the committee, wherein it was recorded that the redevelopment project was eligible under the scheme and that respondent No.4-ACRE had proposed the name of said developer Rossuvalt and time was granted to respondent No.4-ACRE to approach NCLT for continuing the stalled project, as it would be for the benefit of the slum dwellers. 19. It is the case of the petitioner that this document was suppressed by respondent No.1-State, while filing affidavit-in-reply in the present petition and that the committee constituted for the scheme, had also violated the order dated 16.01.2023 of this Court passed in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.37347 of 2023, by not putting the petitioner to notice before issuing minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024. 20. The aforementioned committee constituted in the scheme, on 07.10.2024, took up for consideration the application/proposal of respondent No.4-ACRE, proposing respondent No.9 as the new developer. After recording the chronology of events of earlier meetings held by the said committee, the impugned minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 was passed, recommending the application of respondent No.4-ACRE for appointing respondent No.9 as the new developer in the said redevelopment/slum rehabilitation scheme. After recording the chronology of events of earlier meetings held by the said committee, the impugned minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 was passed, recommending the application of respondent No.4-ACRE for appointing respondent No.9 as the new developer in the said redevelopment/slum rehabilitation scheme. It was recorded that the said recommendation was being made in case the petitioner, as the appointed developer, was terminated under Section 13(2) of the Act. 21. It is the case of the petitioner that despite specific objection raised on its behalf that the said project could not be covered under the scheme and despite the fact that the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act was pending and it was to be heard in pursuance of specific directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 12.10.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.5116 of 2022, respondent Nos.1 to 3, in connivance with respondent Nos.4 to 9, proceeded with parallel proceedings under the scheme, leading to the impugned final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024. 22. It is the case of the petitioner that by issuing such final minutes of decision, the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act were virtually rendered meaningless and it was a foregone conclusion that the petitioner would be terminated as the developer, thereby demonstrating maliciousness and gross arbitrariness of respondents, in order to unceremoniously throw out the petitioner from the redevelopment project. 23. Thereafter, on 11.10.2024, respondent No.1 issued a communication/order addressed to respondent No.3-CEO of respondent No.2-SRA, recording that the recommendation of the committee was approved and thereupon, direction was issued invoking section 3(k) of the Act, to appoint respondent No.4-ACRE with respondent No.9 as developer for redevelopment project, after taking appropriate action in respect of the present developer i.e. the petitioner, by following the procedure prescribed under Section13(2) of the Act. 24. The petitioner was unaware about the order dated 11.10.2024 when the petition was filed. But, subsequently, under the provisions of RTI Act, it came in possession of the documents and hence, by way of amendment, the said order dated 11.10.2024 and minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 were made subject matter of challenge in the present petition. 24. The petitioner was unaware about the order dated 11.10.2024 when the petition was filed. But, subsequently, under the provisions of RTI Act, it came in possession of the documents and hence, by way of amendment, the said order dated 11.10.2024 and minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 were made subject matter of challenge in the present petition. The thrust of the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and 07.10.2024 of the committee constituted under the scheme and the order dated 11.10.2024 issued by respondent No.1- State, in that light, have virtually rendered the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act, meaningless. The modus operandi adopted by respondents to invoke the scheme during the pendency of proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act, demonstrated that the said actions of the respondents were not only arbitrary and malicious, but they violated the letter and spirit of the order dated 12.10.2023, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5116 of 2022. 25. It is a matter of record that on 13.11.2024, a notice was issued by respondent No.2-SRA, through Tahsildar-3 (Special Cell), to the petitioner, respondent Nos.4 to 8 and RLPPL, as also the developer SRPL i.e. the applicant in Interim Application (Lodging) No.35812 of 2024 for hearing under Section 13(2) of the Act, in pursuance of the aforementioned order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.5116 of 2022. The hearing was fixed for 21.11.2024 before respondent No.3-CEO of respondent No.2-SRA. 26. The petitioner apprehended that the hearing would be nothing but a farce and in this backdrop, the petitioner filed the instant petition before this Court in November, 2024. It was urgently circulated on 19.11.2024, when this Court (Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J) directed the petition to be taken up on 28.11.2024 and till the said date, granted ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (d), thereby staying the effect and operation of impugned final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 and further staying the proceedings before respondent No.3-CEO of respondent No.2-SRA, under Section 13(2) of the Act. 27. Thereafter, on 28.11.2024, this Court (Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J) passed an order that the matter may not be placed before the said Bench. The ad-interim order was continued till 04.12.2024. Thereafter, the writ petition was mentioned before another Bench. 27. Thereafter, on 28.11.2024, this Court (Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J) passed an order that the matter may not be placed before the said Bench. The ad-interim order was continued till 04.12.2024. Thereafter, the writ petition was mentioned before another Bench. But, again an order was passed that the said Bench will also not be able to take the writ petition and in that light, an order was passed on administrative side. On 02.12.2024, the Hon’ble Chief Justice, on the administrative side, directed the writ petition to be placed before this Bench for consideration. Accordingly, the writ petition was taken up by this Bench on 04.12.2024. 28. It was brought to the notice of this Court that the aforementioned notice dated 13.11.2024 was already issued by respondent No.2-SRA, for hearing. In that light, after hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties, it was clarified that the ad- interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) would continue. But as regards prayer clause (d), respondent No.3-CEO of respondent No.2- SRA was directed to continue the hearing and it was further directed that no final order would be passed in the proceeding under Section13(2) of the Act. 29. Thereafter, reply affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.1-State, opposing the present writ petition and taking a stand that the petitioner was not justified in contending that its case would not be considered on merits under Section 13(2) of the Act and that the said proceeding would indeed be decided on merits. If at all the petitioner stood terminated as the developer, upon final order being passed under Section 13(2) of the Act, the impugned final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 would operate. On this basis, it was submitted that the writ petition deserved to be dismissed. 30. Thereafter, the petitioner amended the writ petition to bring on record minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and order dated 11.10.2024. Further grounds of challenge were raised and it was alleged that respondent No.1-State had deliberately suppressed the said minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and order dated 11.10.2024. 30. Thereafter, the petitioner amended the writ petition to bring on record minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and order dated 11.10.2024. Further grounds of challenge were raised and it was alleged that respondent No.1-State had deliberately suppressed the said minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and order dated 11.10.2024. It was submitted that the order dated 11.10.2024 clearly supported the apprehension expressed on behalf of the petitioner that the hearing under Section 13(2) of the Act, was reduced to nothing but a formality and that the respondents had all connived to throw out the petitioner, by taking recourse to the scheme and eventually appointing respondent No.9 as the new developer under the redevelopment/slum rehabilitation project. 31. An additional affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.1- State, to explain as to in what circumstances the minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and order dated 11.10.2024 were not placed on record in the earlier affidavit. An apology was tendered in the said additional affidavit and it was further stated that the impugned final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 was nothing, but a recommendation under the scheme, formulated under GR dated 25.05.2022, and it was obviously subject to the outcome of proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act. It was further specifically stated that the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act, would continue uninfluenced by the said impugned final minutes of decision. The other respondents also filed their reply affidavits, to which the petitioner responded and thereafter, the present writ petition was taken up for hearing. 32. In the meanwhile, it was brought to the notice of this Court that on 31.01.2025, the Deputy Collector (Special Cell) of respondent No.2-SRA, issued notice to the petitioner, respondent Nos.4 to 8 and RLPPL, as also the developer SRPL i.e. the applicant in Interim Application (Lodging) No.35812 of 2024, for hearing of the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act, fixed for 11.02.2025. The aforesaid officer took up the hearing and issued notice, as an apprehension was expressed on behalf of the petitioner before this Court that respondent No.3 being CEO of respondent No.2-SRA, taking up the hearing would be hit by the vice of bias because he was also one of the members of the four-member committee constituted under the scheme, contemplated under GR dated 25.05.2022. 33. 33. It was emphasized on behalf of the petitioner that the said notice dated 31.01.2025, specifically referred to aforesaid order dated 11.10.2024 issued by respondent No.1-State under Section 3(k) of the Act, thereby demonstrating that termination of the petitioner as the present developer, was a foregone conclusion and the hearing was nothing but a formality. The parties before this Court, including the petitioner, stated that in terms of interim direction issued by this Court, by the time the writ petition was taken up for consideration, the said officer of respondent No.2-SRA, who had issued notice dated 31.01.2025, had heard the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act, but no final order was passed. 34. Mr. Seervai, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, the narration of events itself demonstrates that removal of the petitioner as the appointed developer under the redevelopment/slum rehabilitation project, was a “done deal”, as the respondents had connived to take recourse to the scheme contemplated under GR dated 25.05.2022 and to proceed under the same in a calculated manner, so as to frustrate the hearing and decision of the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act. It was submitted that the said proceeding ought to have been taken up first, for taking it to its logical conclusion, as per order dated 12.10.2023, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5116 of 2022 and only thereafter, could the scheme be applied, in the event, the appointment of the petitioner as developer, was terminated. It was submitted that the respondents deliberately moved the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act at snail’s pace and in the meanwhile, hurriedly took up implementation of the scheme to the instant project. 35. The tenor of the final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 demonstrated that the petitioner was already being treated as an “erstwhile developer”, even though the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act was yet to reach culmination and all the respondents acted in a concerted manner to appoint respondent No.9 as the “new developer”, even before the petitioner was terminated as the developer, under the redevelopment/slum rehabilitation project. It was submitted that the admitted facts in the present case, clearly demonstrate the actions of respondent Nos.1 to 3 as being wholly arbitrary, malicious and being in connivance with respondent Nos.4 to 9 and hence, completely unsustainable. 36. It was submitted that the admitted facts in the present case, clearly demonstrate the actions of respondent Nos.1 to 3 as being wholly arbitrary, malicious and being in connivance with respondent Nos.4 to 9 and hence, completely unsustainable. 36. It was further submitted that the minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and the order dated 11.10.2024 were deliberately suppressed by respondent No.1-State in its reply affidavit and it was only when the documents were received under the RTI Act, that the petitioner was constrained to amend the petition and bring the documents on record. The explanation for failure to place the said documents on record on behalf of respondent No.1-State, was wholly unacceptable. Such an act on the part of the said respondent further demonstrated the malicious nature of actions of respondent Nos.1 to 3. 37. It was submitted that the order dated 11.10.2024 was passed in haste and purportedly, it was passed under Section 3(k) of the Act. By referring to the said provision, it was submitted that a proper interpretation of the same would show that the State Government can issue general or special directions only as regards policy for carrying out the purposes of the said Act and that such directions can never be issued specifically in the context of an individual project of redevelopment. It was submitted that since the direction issued by the State Government i.e. respondent No.1 under Section 3(k) of the Act, is binding upon respondent No.2-SRA, there is no option for the said respondent, but to terminate the petitioner as developer and to appoint respondent No.9, as per final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024, passed under the scheme. It was submitted that the said order dated 11.10.2024 could never have been issued under Section 3(k) of the Act and that it is in the teeth of settled law laid down by this Court in similar circumstances. 38. It was submitted that the said order dated 11.10.2024 could never have been issued under Section 3(k) of the Act and that it is in the teeth of settled law laid down by this Court in similar circumstances. 38. Reliance was placed on the judgments and orders of this Court in the cases of Om-Sai Darshan Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2006 SCC OnLine Bom 480), Bikaner Sweets and Namkin NX-2 vs. Area Manager, Regional Office, MIDC and others (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3880), Siddhilaxmi Enclave Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 45) and order dated 22.04.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.2338 of 2024 (Gundecha Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others). Reliance was also placed on paragraph No.9 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram and Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana and others [ (1985) 3 SCC 267 ]. 39. It was further submitted that the hollow assurances given on behalf of respondent No.1-State in its two affidavits that the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act, would be decided on merits, uninfluenced by impugned final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 and impugned order dated 11.10.2024, cannot be taken into account. It was submitted that respondent Nos.1 to 3 would have to justify their decision only on the basis of the impugned orders and that the affidavits filed on their behalf ought to be ignored by this Court. 40. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji (1951 SCC OnLine SC 70) and Mohindhr Singh Gill and another vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 ]. It was submitted that the impugned decisions and order, on their own, are clearly arbitrary and wholly unsustainable. 41. It was further submitted that respondent No.4-ACRE is clearly not justified in contending that the instant petition was filed merely based on apprehensions. It was submitted that the notice of hearing dated 31.01.2025 issued by the Deputy Collector (Special Cell) of respondent No.2-SRA, specifically referred to and relied upon impugned order dated 11.10.2024, thereby demonstrating that the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the said Act had been reduced to a sham. It was submitted that the notice of hearing dated 31.01.2025 issued by the Deputy Collector (Special Cell) of respondent No.2-SRA, specifically referred to and relied upon impugned order dated 11.10.2024, thereby demonstrating that the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the said Act had been reduced to a sham. In that regard, it was contended that the concerns of petitioner, could not be said to be mere apprehensions and the petitioner had filed the present petition as a “quia timet” action to restrain the imminent threatening act on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and in that backdrop, it was submitted that the writ of prohibition could be issued against the said respondents. 42. It was further submitted that the contention raised on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3-SRA that the Deputy Collector (Special Cell) of respondent No.2 has conducted a fair hearing, without being influenced by the impugned final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 and order dated 11.10.2024, is without any substance. It was further submitted that contentions raised on behalf of the societies were also unsustainable. 43. In fact, the contention raised on behalf of respondent No.5- society that the adjudication of a stalled scheme is in the nature of no-fault clause resulting in penalty, even if delay may not be attributable to the developer, clearly demonstrates that a decision has already been taken to terminate the petitioner as the developer, even if it is not to be blamed for delay in execution of redevelopment/slum rehabilitation project. 44. It was further submitted that it could not lie in the mouth of respondent No.9 to justify the actions of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and that submissions made on behalf of the said respondent further demonstrate the connivance between the said respondents. Much emphasis was placed on a rent receipt placed on record, demonstrating that a substantial amount was paid towards rent on 21.03.2025 by respondent No.9, as if it was already appointed as the new developer for the scheme. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, this further demonstrated the fact that the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act, has been reduced to a farce. 45. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, this further demonstrated the fact that the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act, has been reduced to a farce. 45. As regards applicant in Interim Application (Lodging) No.35812 of 2024 i.e. SRPL, it was submitted that this Court ought not to hear the said applicant, for the reason that it had clearly given up its right in the said project, as recorded in the final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 by the four-member committee established under the scheme. 46. On this basis, it was submitted that the impugned minutes of decision and the impugned order deserve to be quashed and set aside. The hearing of proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act, ought to be conducted de novo, so that such a fresh hearing can be conducted truly on merits, without the baggage of the illegal acts undertaken by the respondents under the scheme. 47. On the other hand, Mr. Kadam, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1-State submitted that the petitioner was unnecessarily raising hue and cry in respect of the impugned minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 and 15.07.2024 as also the order dated 11.10.2024. It was submitted that the final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 were clearly recommendatory in nature, wherein it was specifically recorded that the recommendation would come into force, only upon culmination of the proceeding initiated under Section 13(2) of the Act. It was submitted that the order dated 11.10.2024 also specifically recorded that proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act would proceed as per the prescribed procedure, thereby indicating that the recommendation under the scheme, approved by respondent No.1-State, would come into operation, only after culmination of proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act. 48. As regards the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner under Section 3(k) of the Act, it was submitted that a proper reading of order dated 11.10.2024 would show that respondent No.1-State, in paragraph No.3 of the said order, specifically referred to the policy of the State, as per the scheme formulated under GR dated 25.05.2022, granting approval to recommendation of the committee, as per final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024, thereby indicating that the said order was a direction as per the policy of the State. 49. 49. It was further submitted that the said order specifically directed certain issues to be taken into consideration, including hearing of proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act, in the context of the present developer i.e. the petitioner itself. It was submitted that when the said document i.e. order dated 11.10.2024 is considered in a holistic manner, it certainly qualifies as proper exercise of power by respondent No.1-State under Section 3(k) of the Act and that judgments upon which the petitioner placed reliance in this context, are clearly distinguishable on facts. 50. The learned senior counsel then referred to the facts of each of the cases and submitted that the impugned order dated 11.10.2024 could not be said to be a direction that was project-specific, but it was a special direction in the context of the scheme for stalled projects. It was submitted that the policy of the State Government, as manifested in GR dated 25.05.2022, is to ensure that all such stalled projects are revived at the earliest for completion, in the interest of slum dwellers and in this case, respondent Nos.5 to 8-societies. 51. It was further submitted that the misplaced apprehensions of the petitioner have been sufficiently addressed in the affidavits filed on behalf of respondent No.1-State, wherein it has been repeatedly stated that the Deputy Collector (Special Cell) of respondent No.2 would hear the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act on its own merits, uninfluenced by the final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 of the four-member committee and impugned order dated 11.10.2024. On this basis, it was submitted that there is absolutely no substance in the present petition, particularly when the decision that would be finally passed in proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act, would be subject to appeals provided under the said legislation and ultimately further challenges that may be raised by the aggrieved parties. 52. It was further submitted that the allegations of suppression against respondent No.1-State, were misplaced. The said officer bonafide believed that the writ petition challenged only the final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 and that the minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and order dated 11.10.2024 were not relevant. In any case, when the advocates advised the said officer about the necessity of placing on record the said minutes of decision and order, a draft affidavit was prepared. In any case, when the advocates advised the said officer about the necessity of placing on record the said minutes of decision and order, a draft affidavit was prepared. But, in the meanwhile, the petitioner amended the petition and made allegations of suppression. In any case, the officer had tendered an apology before this Court. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed as being devoid of merits. 53. Mr. Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3-SRA, submitted that the petitioner was all along aware about the two proceedings being taken up simultaneously i.e. proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act and the proceeding under the scheme as per GR dated 25.05.2022. It was submitted that the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act was initiated way back on 02.09.2022, when the petitioner was duly put to notice and this is evident from the notice dated 02.09.2022 issued to the petitioner. Thereafter, as per order dated 12.10.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, further notice dated 13.11.2024 was issued, specifically relying upon the said order. Subsequently, the Deputy Collector (Special Cell) of respondent No.2 issued notice on 31.01.2025, for taking hearing. 54. The necessary procedure has been duly followed in conducting the said hearing. Even in the proceedings conducted by the four- member committee constituted under the scheme contemplated as per GR dated 25.05.2022, the petitioner was put to notice and it participated in the proceedings. Therefore, it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner that the scheme being implemented as a policy of the State, in any manner, has encroached upon the rights of the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has been granted full opportunity of hearing in both the proceedings and there can be no grievance on that count. 55. It was further submitted that the affidavits placed on record on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 have brought to the notice of this Court the fact that implementation of the scheme is subject to final result of proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act. There is no question of the proceeding under the said provision being influenced by the recommendation of the four-member committee in the final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024, being approved by respondent No.1-State, as per order dated 11.10.2024. On this basis, it was submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 56. Mr. There is no question of the proceeding under the said provision being influenced by the recommendation of the four-member committee in the final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024, being approved by respondent No.1-State, as per order dated 11.10.2024. On this basis, it was submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 56. Mr. Doctor, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.4-ACRE submitted that petition deserves to be dismissed, for the reason that it is based purely on apprehensions, which has no basis in the material available on record. By referring to the impugned decisions and order as also the documentary material available on record, it was submitted that the writ petition ought to be held as not maintainable, since the petitioner can have no cause of action in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 57. It was further submitted that the petitioner is duly represented and it has full opportunity to place its case before the Deputy Collector (Special Cell) of respondent No.2 conducting proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act. The question as to whether the petitioner can be terminated as the developer, is still to be answered and therefore, the petitioner cannot raise any grievance in the present petition. 58. In this context, reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others [ (1976) 1 SCC 671 ], Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others [ (2013) 4 SCC 465 ] and order dated 13.06.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.12338 of 2021 (Meta Tiles Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others). It was submitted that respondent No.1-State has already made it clear that appointment of the new developer under the scheme, was contingent upon decision under Section 13(2) of the Act, which sufficiently protects the interests of the petitioner. The learned senior counsel refrained from making submissions on the merits of the matter, as to whether the petitioner deserved to be terminated as developer in the subject redevelopment/slum rehabilitation project, for the reason that the said aspect was not argued on behalf of the petitioner and it was kept open to be argued before the concerned authority. 59. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5-society and Mr. 59. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5-society and Mr. Samdani, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.9, submitted that the applications for termination of appointment of the petitioner as developer, were moved before respondent No.2 from February 2022 onwards by respondent-societies. The petitioner had evidently failed to even initiate any development activity and therefore, it cannot be suggested that the subject project could not be covered under the scheme, as per GR dated 25.05.2022. It was submitted that the impugned decisions and order were based on implementation of the said policy of the State, taking into account the grievances of the slum dwellers i.e. members of respondent-societies. The petitioner wants to somehow cling on the project and the bogie of unreasonableness, arbitrariness and maliciousness is raised by the petitioner to somehow derail the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act, which ought not be permitted. 60. The learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.5- society specifically submitted that the scheme can be looked at as a no-fault situation, wherein the only relevant consideration is delay in completion of project, without any reference to the party that may be responsible for such delay. On this basis, it was submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 61. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor-applicant in Interim Application (Lodging) No.35812 of 2024, submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to keep the said applicant out of the present proceedings. It was submitted that the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act ought to continue, particularly because the final order is amenable to challenge under the provisions of the said Act before the appropriate appellate authority. Even if the petitioner states that there is breach of principles of natural justice in the said proceedings before the original authority, the fact that substantive appeals are available, takes the wind out of the arguments of the petitioner. 62. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of New Janta SRA CHS Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3896), wherein the principle of remedy of substantive appeal curing the defect of an unfair trial, was accepted. On this basis, it was submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 63. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of New Janta SRA CHS Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3896), wherein the principle of remedy of substantive appeal curing the defect of an unfair trial, was accepted. On this basis, it was submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 63. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, this Court finds that even according to the petitioner, if all its contentions are accepted and impugned decisions and order are set aside, the consequential relief being sought on behalf of the petitioner is a de novo proceeding and hearing to be initiated under Section 13(2) of the Act. In other words, what is suggested is that the hearing that has taken place before the Deputy Collector (Special Cell) of respondent No.2, during the pendency of the present petition, ought to be held as ineffective and lapsed, with a further direction to undertake de novo initiation of such proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act. It will have to be examined as to whether the petitioner has made out a case to successfully pray for such relief. 64. Before considering the question as to whether the impugned final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024, can be treated as an order requiring interference or it can be treated merely as a recommendation, it would be necessary to first address the issue regarding power exercised by respondent No.1-State under Section 3(k) of the Act, in the context of order dated 11.10.2024 issued on behalf of respondent No.1-State and addressed to respondent No.3- CEO of respondent No.2-SRA. According to the petitioner, the said order is completely vitiated as such an order/direction can never be issued by the State, by invoking Section 3(k) of the Act. The said provision reads as follows: “3K. Power of State Government to issue directions (1) The State Government may issue to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority such general or special directions as to policy as it may think necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall be bound to follow and act upon such directions. Power of State Government to issue directions (1) The State Government may issue to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority such general or special directions as to policy as it may think necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Act and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall be bound to follow and act upon such directions. (2)(a) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, if the State Government is of opinion that the execution of any resolution or order of the Authority is in contravention of, or in excess of, the powers conferred by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, or is likely to lead to abuse or misuse of or to cause waste of the Fund of the Authority, the State Government may, in the public interest, by order in writing, suspend the execution of such resolution or order. A copy of such order shall be sent forthwith by the State Government to the Authority and its Chief Executive Officer. (b)On receipt of the order sent as aforesaid, the Authority shall be bound to follow and act upon such order.” 65. In support of the aforesaid submission, the petitioner has specifically relied upon three judgments of this Court and an interim order. In the case of Om-Sai Darshan Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), a Division Bench of this Court was considering a situation where a direction was issued by a Minister of the State Government, recorded in the minutes of a meeting, to the effect that a proposal submitted by a particular society should be examined and decided immediately, with a further direction to issue Annexure-II to the said society. It was a specific submission made before this Court that the said direction was issued under Section 3(k) of the Act. 66. The Division Bench of this Court held that even if it was to be assumed that the said direction could be read as a direction under Section 3(k) of the Act, at best, it could be read as a direction to consider the proposal of that particular society immediately. 66. The Division Bench of this Court held that even if it was to be assumed that the said direction could be read as a direction under Section 3(k) of the Act, at best, it could be read as a direction to consider the proposal of that particular society immediately. But, it could not be read to be a direction to grant approval to issuance of Annexure-II in favour of the society, as the said Act gives no power to the Minster of the State Government, to grant such direction or sanction. It is in this backdrop that the Division Bench of this Court held that the power of the State Government under Section 3(k) of the Act, extends only to issue general or special directions as to the policy that are found to be necessary and expedient for carrying out the purposes of the said Act. It was specifically held that such a power cannot extend to giving a direction for according sanction to grant of Annexure-II to a particular society. 67. In the case of Bikaner Sweets and Namkin NX-2 vs. Area Manager, Regional Office, MIDC and others (supra) and Siddhilaxmi Enclave Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), another Division Bench of this Court held in respect of a pari materia provision i.e. Section 18 of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Act, 1961, that directions under such a provision are meant to be directions as regards policy matters and not directions regarding specific project and specific allotment of land. On the facts of the said cases, it was found that a particular instruction was not at all a policy direction under the said provision. 68. In the interim order passed in the case of Gundecha Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), a Division Bench of this Court observed that the SRA could not have been directed to trigger the proceeding for cancellation of LOI under Section 13(2) of the Act, under the guise of invoking Section 3(k) of the Act. 68. In the interim order passed in the case of Gundecha Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), a Division Bench of this Court observed that the SRA could not have been directed to trigger the proceeding for cancellation of LOI under Section 13(2) of the Act, under the guise of invoking Section 3(k) of the Act. In this context, reliance was also placed on the settled position of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram and Shyam Company vs. State of Haryana and others (supra), to the effect that an appeal from one’s own order to oneself is a clear situation of unfairness and such a remedy cannot be accepted as an effective remedy for the aggrieved party. 69. This Court has perused the above-quoted section of the said Act in the context of the aforementioned judgments upon which reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioner. It is evident that under the said provision, the State is empowered to issue general/special directions to SRA as to matters of policy that the State may deem necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the said Act. Such general or special directions are binding upon SRA and it is required to act upon such directions/orders. 70. In the present case, the impugned order dated 11.10.2024 issued on behalf of respondent No.1-State to the respondent-SRA, is attacked on the ground that it openly refers to the exercise of power under Section 3(k) of the Act and that the contents of the said order clearly show that it neither qualifies to be a general direction, nor as a special direction as to the matters of policy. It is claimed on behalf of the petitioner that since the said order has specifically focused on the subject redevelopment/rehabilitation project and the only way in which it can be read is that it is a direction to remove the petitioner as developer and to appoint respondent No.9 in its place, the same is completely vitiated and rendered unsustainable. The impugned order dated 11.10.2024 needs to be examined in detail to deal with the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 71. The impugned order dated 11.10.2024 needs to be examined in detail to deal with the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 71. A perusal of the same shows that the order opens with a reference to Section 3(k) of the Act, specifically stating that the State is empowered to issue general or special directions as to the matters of policy that are found necessary for carrying out the purposes of the said Act. Thereafter, the order refers to the State policy manifested under GR dated 25.05.2022 in the form of a scheme for stalled rehabilitation projects under the said Act. It then refers to the requirements under the scheme and to the fact that a committee stood constituted under the GR dated 12.07.2023, in order to take forward the aforesaid policy of the State to implement the scheme. 72. Paragraph No.3 of the said order dated 11.10.2024, further specifically records that the aforesaid committee conducted meetings from time to time, to consider the proposals received under the scheme and after detailed discussions, the committee forwarded its recommendation. The said recommendation was then recorded to have been approved. Thereafter, the said order records that as per the State policy under the scheme and the recommendation of the committee in respect of the subject project under Section 3(k) of the Act, the State was issuing a direction to implement the redevelopment project, subject to terms and conditions specified in GR dated 25.05.2022 through respondent No.4-ACRE and respondent No.9-PDPL. 73. The aforesaid order further recorded in paragraph No.5 that the said order was being issued under Section 3(k) of the Act, as per the policy of State, reflected in GR dated 25.05.2022. It was specifically directed that appropriate steps be taken as regards the present developer i.e. the petitioner herein by SRA under Section 13(2) of the Act, by following due procedure. Thereafter, the respondent No.1-State issued ancillary directions in the said order. 74. This Court is of the opinion that reading the impugned order dated 11.10.2024 in its entirety from paragraph Nos.1 to 5, does not give an impression that the respondent No.1-State, under the garb of exercising power under Section 3(k) of the Act, has misused its power and passed the direction/order only in respect of an individual project, without reference to any policy matter. The contents of paragraph Nos.2 to 5 read together demonstrate that respondent No.1-State has issued general directions in the form of the scheme for stalled redevelopment projects, by issuing GR dated 25.05.2022 and special directions in terms of the said policy. 75. It is significant that the very order dated 11.10.2024 specifically directs that appropriate steps be taken in respect of the present developer i.e. petitioner herein, as per due procedure under Section 13(2) of the Act. It is clear that when the petitioner is recorded as the “present developer” in said order, the implementation and execution of direction issued by respondent No.1-State, as per its policy manifested in GR dated 25.05.2022 pertaining to the scheme, is subject to the steps to be taken under Section 13(2) of the Act. Unless the petitioner, as the present developer, is terminated, the policy direction under the scheme, as per order dated 11.10.2024, cannot operate. This factual position is distinguishable from the facts before this Court in the cases of Om- Sai Darshan Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), Bikaner Sweets and Namkin NX-2 vs. Area Manager, Regional Office, MIDC and others (supra) and Siddhilaxmi Enclave Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra). 76. In the said cases, this Court, on facts, found that the power exercised by respondent No.1-State could not be said to be an order/direction as to matters of policy to be covered under Section 3(k) of the Act. In the interim order passed in the case of Gundecha Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), the Division Bench of this Court prima facie found that a proceeding for cancellation of LOI under Section 13(2) of the Act, could not be triggered and completed under the guise of invoking Section 3(k) of the Act. 77. In contrast, in the present case, proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act in the context of the petitioner, were initiated as far back as on 18.02.2022, when respondent No.7-society sought termination of the petitioner as the developer under Section 13(2) of the Act. The State policy of the scheme itself came into being by GR dated 25.05.2022. Thus, there is no question of the proceeding against the petitioner herein being triggered under the guise of invocation of Section 3(k) of the Act. The State policy of the scheme itself came into being by GR dated 25.05.2022. Thus, there is no question of the proceeding against the petitioner herein being triggered under the guise of invocation of Section 3(k) of the Act. Subsequently, respondent No.6- society on 20.12.02022 and respondent No.5-society on 31.03.2023, also filed applications under Section 13(2) of the Act for termination of the petitioner as the developer. The proceedings were pending, when Writ Petition No.5116 of 2022 filed by the petitioner, came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court alongwith a number of intervention applications filed by the societies and other stakeholders. 78. On 12.10.2023, the Division Bench of this Court recorded a statement made on behalf of the petitioner that instead of its case being decided on merits before this Court, the petitioner would rather pursue the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act. The writ petition and applications were disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to take up and decide the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act, after giving proper hearing to all concerned. In pursuance thereof, notices were issued and the petitioner alongwith others, have fully participated in the hearing. 79. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner herein is not justified in contending that the impugned order dated 11.10.2024 issued by respondent No.1-State in the form of binding direction to respondent-SRA, is a colourable exercise of power. This Court finds the said order/direction issued by respondent No.1-State is a direction covered under the said provision i.e. Section 3(k) of the Act. It is found that the said binding direction, specifically directs, inter alia, to pass appropriate orders in the context of petitioner, after following due procedure under Section 13(2) of the Act. It is obvious that the proceeding under the said provision will first reach its logical end as per law and thereafter, can the policy direction of acceptance of recommendation under the scheme, be implemented. Hence, the challenge raised on behalf of the petitioner against the impugned order dated 11.10.2024, is rejected. 80. The petitioner has also challenged the minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024. Hence, the challenge raised on behalf of the petitioner against the impugned order dated 11.10.2024, is rejected. 80. The petitioner has also challenged the minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024. It is the case of the petitioner that the very fact that respondent Nos.1 to 3 initiated steps under the scheme, as per GR dated 25.05.2022, without first taking the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act to its logical end, itself shows the maliciousness and arbitrariness on the part of said respondents. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the said policy in the form of scheme under GR dated 25.05.2022. 81. A perusal of the GR dated 25.05.2022 shows that the State considered the plight of slum dwellers and members of societies, like respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein, in the context of redevelopment projects remaining stalled for a considerable period of time. In the context of such stalled projects, the aforesaid GR formulated the scheme under which proposals could be invited from financial institutions alongwith co-developers, to execute and complete such stalled redevelopment projects. 82. The intent of the said policy of the State under GR dated 25.05.2022 is to ensure that such stalled projects do not remain further languishing and expeditious steps are taken, so that the redevelopment work can be completed in the interest of the slum dwellers and members of societies, like respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein. As per the provisions of the Act, rigorous procedure for obtaining consent of specific numbers of members of the society, are to be satisfied, when such slum rehabilitation/redevelopment projects are initiated. The State policy under the said GR dated 25.05.2022 is that in the case of such stalled redevelopment projects, instead of the clock being put back and the said rigours being again followed, which would obviously delay the project further, proposals can be directly invited from financial institutions and co-developers to expeditiously implement the redevelopment/rehabilitation projects. This appears to be the purpose of the said State policy termed as the amnesty scheme. In order to effectively implement the said State policy, subsequent GR dated 12.07.2023 constituted a four-member committee to consider applications/proposals from interested parties under the GR dated 25.05.2022. 83. This appears to be the purpose of the said State policy termed as the amnesty scheme. In order to effectively implement the said State policy, subsequent GR dated 12.07.2023 constituted a four-member committee to consider applications/proposals from interested parties under the GR dated 25.05.2022. 83. The impugned minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 were issued by the committee under the scheme, observing that such project in the present case, was eligible under the scheme and that the application of respondent No.4-ACRE could be considered and time was granted to the said respondent to request NCLT to continue the stalled project for the benefit of the slum dwellers. A perusal of the said minutes of decision dated 15.07.2023 shows that the application of the said respondent was considered and time was granted. This Court finds no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that while issuing the said minutes of decision, the committee ought to have heard the petitioner. No effective order or direction was granted in favour of the said respondent in the context of the scheme and therefore, the petitioner is not justified in attacking the said minutes of decision, on the ground that it was not heard in the matter. 84. This is particularly in the backdrop of the fact that when the committee actually took up the proposal under the scheme in the context of the subject project, wherein the petitioner is an appointed developer, the petitioner was heard and this is evident from the documents on record. A perusal of the impugned minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024, shows that the committee held meetings on 13.02.2024, 12.03.2024, 16.04.2024, 15.07.2024, 24.09.2024 and finally on 07.10.2024. The petitioner was before the committee in these meetings and it is specifically recorded in the meeting held on 24.09.2024, that the petitioner, through its counsel, specifically objected, submitting that the subject redevelopment/rehabilitation project was not fit for being covered under the scheme and it should be brought out of the same. 85. Even when the final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 were issued, the petitioner was duly heard. Therefore, the impugned final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 cannot be interfered with, only on the ground that the petitioner was not given an appropriate opportunity. 85. Even when the final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 were issued, the petitioner was duly heard. Therefore, the impugned final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 cannot be interfered with, only on the ground that the petitioner was not given an appropriate opportunity. This Court finds on facts that sufficient opportunity was indeed granted to the petitioner to claim before the four-member committee as to why the subject project could not be covered under the scheme. 86. The said final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 faced a trenchant attack from the petitioner on the ground that the four- member committee proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was already terminated as the developer and that proceedings were being undertaken for appointing a new developer. Much emphasis was placed on the use of the words “erstwhile developer”, while referring to the petitioner and the fact that bar chart for speedy completion of the project and rent payment guarantees were already received from respondent No.4-ACRE and respondent No.9-PDPL. 87. This Court has perused the impugned final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 issued by the four-member committee under the scheme. It is important to note that the four-member committee decided to recommend and to give approval for covering the subject project under the scheme and further specifically directed that if the petitioner was to be terminated as the developer under Section 13(2) of the Act, by following due process, then respondent No.9-PDPL would be appointed as the new developer for the project, to expedite the execution of the project. 88. Merely the use of the word “erstwhile” in the said final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024, in itself cannot lead to a conclusion that the said decision is vitiated. It cannot be ignored that even the four-member committee, while approving the subject project being covered under the scheme, was alive to the fact that respondent No.9-PDPL could be appointed as the new developer, only if the petitioner was terminated as developer under Section 13(2) of the Act, after following “due process”. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of petitioner in this regard. 89. Hence, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of petitioner in this regard. 89. In any case, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner to claim that the impugned final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 ought to be set aside, deserves to be rejected on the sole ground that the said decision is merely a recommendation of the four-member committee constituted under GR dated 12.07.2023, as per State policy manifested under GR dated 25.05.2022. In fact, the impugned final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024, after completing the entire discussion, merely recommend that respondent No.9-PDPL could be appointed as the new developer under the slum rehabilitation project. No fault can be found with the four-member committee calling for and examining the bar chart for speedy completion of rent payment guarantee from respondent No.4-ACRE and respondent No.9-PDPL, for the reason that the committee was necessarily required to examine the veracity of the claims of the said respondents before accepting their proposals under the scheme. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of petitioner for challenging final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024. 90. In this context, this Court finds substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner primarily on apprehensions. It is a matter of record that the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act has been undertaken with full opportunity of hearing being given to all the stakeholders, including the petitioner. In fact, in order to address the apprehension of bias, expressed on behalf of the petitioner, that if respondent No.3-CEO of respondent No.2-SRA conducts the hearing under Section 13(2) of the Act, it would be detrimental to the petitioner because the very same respondent was one of the members of the four-member committee constituted for implementation of the scheme, the hearing of the proceeding was taken up afresh before the aforementioned Deputy Collector (Special Cell) of respondent No.2. 91. This Court does not find substance in the contention of petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of present case, the hearing being conducted under Section 13(2) of the Act, can be said to be farcical and that termination of the petitioner as the developer and appointment of respondent No.9-PDPL as the new developer, is a “done deal”. 91. This Court does not find substance in the contention of petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of present case, the hearing being conducted under Section 13(2) of the Act, can be said to be farcical and that termination of the petitioner as the developer and appointment of respondent No.9-PDPL as the new developer, is a “done deal”. The material on record does not support the said contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 92. To that extent, this Court finds that respondent No.4-ACRE is justified in relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others (supra), Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) and Meta Tiles Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others (supra). This Court would not go to the extent of holding that petitioner does not have locus to maintain the present petition. But, there is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the present petition is based on apprehensions and not any material to show actual infringement of a legal right of the petitioner. 93. In this context, the contents of the affidavits filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 need to be perused. In the affidavits, it is specifically stated that the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act is obviously being conducted as per law, uninfluenced by the recommendation made by the four-member committee in the impugned final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024. Even the order dated 11.10.2024 issued by respondent No.1-State to respondent-SRA, is being clarified as an order requiring the concerned authority to conduct the hearing under Section 13(2) of the Act, to complete the same as per the due procedure and there is enough material before this Court to indicate that grievances sought to be raised by the petitioner, are not borne out from the material on record. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that implementation of the State policy in the form of the scheme, has vitiated the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act. 94. This Court is of the opinion that respondent Nos.1 to 3, in their affidavits, have not sought to supply any reasons to support the impugned minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and 07.10.2024 or the order dated 11.10.2024. 94. This Court is of the opinion that respondent Nos.1 to 3, in their affidavits, have not sought to supply any reasons to support the impugned minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and 07.10.2024 or the order dated 11.10.2024. The said decisions and order are self- speaking and this Court has tested them only on the basis of their contents. Hence, the petitioner is not justified in relying upon judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs. Gordhandas Bhanji (supra) and Mohindhr Singh Gill and another vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (supra). 95. In any case, as noted hereinabove, the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act was initiated as far back as on 18.02.2022, when respondent No.7-society filed application for termination of the petitioner as the developer under the said provision. Subsequently, respondent Nos.5 and 6-societies also filed such applications, contending that the petitioner, as the developer, had not taken effective steps in the matter, as the petitioner was appointed by the societies for the project as far back as in the years 2004-2005, with LOI being issued as far back as on 02.09.2011. 96. This Court is refraining from making any comment on the aspect as to the reasons why the subject project remained languishing and became a stalled project. The said aspect has to be considered by the concerned authority, undertaking hearing of the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act. Nonetheless, it is evident that proceedings undertaken as per the State policy of the scheme, cannot be said to have been initiated or undertaken with a view to scuttle the prospects of the petitioner in the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act. In fact, the aforementioned State policy of the scheme came into being on 25.05.2022, while the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act was initiated against the petitioner, prior thereto i.e. on 18.02.2022, when respondent No.7-society filed its application. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was unaware that the two proceedings were being undertaken. Thus, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of petitioner in that regard. 97. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner was unaware that the two proceedings were being undertaken. Thus, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of petitioner in that regard. 97. Although the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 to 8-societies sought to project the plight of members of societies and slum dwellers, due to the fact that the subject project has remained languishing, this Court is of the opinion that they are entitled to raise such issues in the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act. This Court is not placing much importance on the rent receipt showing respondent No.9-PDPL having paid rent to some individuals, for the reason that the documents on record show that the petitioner still continues to be the developer, as the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act are pending and the final order is yet to be passed. 98. In fact, it is significant that under the provisions of said Act, any party aggrieved by the order passed by the authority under Section 13(2) thereof, is entitled to file a substantive appeal before the appellate authority and that there are sufficient avenues of challenge available to an aggrieved party under the said Act. 99. Thus, if at all the petitioner is dissatisfied by the final order that would be passed, upon culmination of proceeding under Section 13(2) of the said Act, it can file a substantive appeal. Even if the petitioner alleges breach of principles of natural justice by the said authority, hearing the original proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act, it can raise appropriate grounds by approaching the appellate authority in the substantive appeal. To that extent, reliance placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of New Janta SRA CHS Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), is justified. 100. Even otherwise, as per the petitioner itself, the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act would have to be initiated de novo, even if all the contentions of petitioner were to be accepted and the instant petition was to be allowed. As noted hereinabove, this Court finds that there is no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner and therefore, there is no question of the petition being allowed. As noted hereinabove, this Court finds that there is no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of petitioner and therefore, there is no question of the petition being allowed. In that context, this Court finds substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that by filing the present petition and pursuing the same so vigorously, the petitioner is making an attempt to delay the eventual culmination of proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act. 101. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent No.1 cannot be hauled up for suppressing the minutes of decision dated 15.07.2024 and impugned order dated 11.10.2024. 102. In view of the above, the writ petition is found to be without any substance. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. The interim order is vacated. The Deputy Collector (Special Cell) of respondent No.2, hearing the proceeding under Section 13(2) of the Act, shall now proceed further in accordance with law. 103. It is made clear that the Deputy Collector (Special Cell) shall finally decide the proceedings under Section 13(2) of the Act, uninfluenced by the impugned final minutes of decision dated 07.10.2024 and this order disposing of the writ petition. 104. All pending applications also stand disposed of.