The petitioner had made various allegations of irregularities, illegalities, and collusion with respect to the slum rehabilitation project. The Court, however, noted that the beneficiaries of the slum rehabilitation had no complaints.
Therefore, it is unclear on whose behalf the petition was filed, the bench observed.
“The petitioner has no track record of public interest litigation or of espousing public causes in the larger public interest. The petitioner has singled out one particular slum rehabilitation project, one developer, one slum society and the SRA … We have every reason to doubt the bona fides of the petitioner. This is not a petition that raises any larger issue pertaining to slum rehabilitation projects generally or town and country planning or general principles of sound town planning,” the Court remarked.
Source: Barandbench
