The Bombay High Court, in the case of Alphonso D’Souza and Anr. v Apex Grievances Redressal Committee and Ors., delivered a significant judgment clarifying the jurisdiction of the Apex Grievances Redressal Committee (AGRC) under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, commonly referred to as the Slum Act. The court was tasked with determining whether the AGRC held original jurisdiction in a dispute brought forth by the 3rd Respondent or whether its jurisdiction was purely appellate.
The Role of AGRC Under the Slum Act
The AGRC is a statutory body, deriving its powers from specific provisions of the Slum Act. Sections 34A and 35 of the Slum Act were pivotal in this case. Section 34A, introduced by an amendment in 2023 with retrospective effect from March 8, 2017, establishes the AGRC’s powers, mainly to handle appeals against decisions by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) or other designated officers. Section 35 outlines the process for appeals against any orders or directions issued by the appellate authority.
Court’s Findings on AGRC’s Jurisdiction
The court found that the AGRC did not possess original jurisdiction to entertain complaints or applications directly. Its role is restricted to acting as an appellate body, reviewing decisions made by the CEO or other officials under the SRA, unless a specific issue is referred to it by the State Government. The court emphasized that the AGRC cannot hear private civil disputes, aligning its jurisdiction with appellate functions as outlined by Sections 34A and 35 of the Slum Act.
Precedents and Legislative Intent
The court referred to the full bench decision in Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., which was issued before Sections 34A and 35 were in effect. The AGRC, as the successor to the High-Powered Committee (HPC), cannot assume original jurisdiction based on older government resolutions or notifications if they conflict with the current statutory framework. The court further clarified that the AGRC’s jurisdiction is explicitly defined by statute and cannot be expanded to encompass original jurisdiction without legislative amendment.
🌟 Discover Landmark Judgements and Orders! 🌟
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court concluded that the AGRC lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the 3rd Respondent’s complaint in the current matter, setting aside the AGRC’s order issued on January 5, 2022. The decision reiterates that statutory bodies like the AGRC must adhere strictly to the jurisdiction granted by law, preventing any overreach into areas not legislated by the relevant statutory provisions.