Welcome to the 'Venice of the east' project of UNICELL

 

NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PEOPLE'S MOVEMENTS
Press statement 30thMay 2005

CM's claim that the court's consent needed for changing the cut-off date is proved false.


Let Congress-NCP fulfill it's promise now!

The Dharna-Satyagraha of the slum dwellers, representing 90,000 families made homeless continues on the 15th day, today at the Sangharsha wadi, Azad Maidan.
Meanwhile the Governmentv of Maharashtra is fully exposedsince it's attempt to avoid a decision and it's execution, pretending to go to court and claiming that they need Mumbai High Court's permission to change the policy on slum rehabilitation and the cut-off date. In reality, it's very clear from the orders, which the Governmentof Maharashtra refers to in support of the above argument, that there was not and there is no such compulsion and no directive of any court which would prevent the state Govt, from amending it's policy provisions or eligibility criteria related to the rehabilitation of the slum dwellers.
It may be noted that the Advocate General of Maharashtra moved a Notice of Motion under an old case by Relief Road Housing Societies Association (Societies of ex- bureaucrats of the state and central Govt.) which was disposed off in October 2001. The judgement dated October 12 2001, the judgement categorically states as follows:

"NOTHING SAID IN THIS JUDGEMENT SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS EXPRESSION OF OPINION ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION CONFERING RIGHT OF REHABILITATION ON SLUM DWELLERS, THE VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OR THE DECISION TAKEN THEREUNDER ISSUED. THE QUESTIONS ARE LEFT OPEN."

It is thus clear that the court refused to restrain or close down the process of formulation or review of the policy (including the cut-off-date) which, it is well known, is an executive decision and not judicial.
The Govt. of Maharashtra has also quoted from the interim judgement of July 9th,1999 in the said case. In reality the courts are only selective. The interim judgement goes as follows:

"On being specifically asked, Mr. Govilkar (Advocate for the Govt.) states that he has no instruction on the question whether there is any proposal to further extend the cut-off-date of 1st January, 1995."

" Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, pending the decision of the petition, we restrain the respondents from further extending the cut-off-date from 1st January 1995"
The judgement further stipulates "We have not gone into the question as to whether, under the policy of 1996, the encroachers are entitled to any rehabilitation or not. It woul be for the authorities to decide the say. In fact the interim judgement too gave an opportunity for the Government to take precluding steps before March 2000, thus giving full 9 months period for taking care of people, before displacement.

The Govt. of Maharashtra however, has also been referring to it's own affidavit in which it stated that " the Govt. will not extend the cut-off-date of 1st January 1995." It did this requesting the court to dispose off the case in 2000. However the final judgement didn't even take the cognisance of the commitment and didn't prevent any change in the cut-off-date or amendment of it's policy for rehabilitation of slum dwellers.

All this clearly indicates and exposes the fact that the CM and tha Govt. of Maharashtra had made an absolutely false pretension of the court orders or any affidavit coming in the way of their protecting the slum dwellers after 1995. On the other hand, the Govt. is and was free to execute it's promise to recognize and rehabilitate the slum dwellers upto any year. The commitment in the manifesto demands it is changed to 31st December 2000.
Atleast while the constitutional rights and UN convention demand that, all poor are ensured a minimum human standard of living, with housing rights which, as per the Supreme Court judgement, are part and parcel of the Right to Housing (2001). It is very clear in the case of the World Bank funded MUTP, the state Govt. is rehabilitating any and every family affected, may it be settled in 2000 or 2004. If that is done under the World Bank's Dictate why not protect other projects and plan and plan-affected poor as well.
We the slum dwellers from all evicted communities and people's organizations agitating under the banner of NAPM once again demand that -

1) Congress- NCP keeps it's promise to protect slum dwellers
2) We should be allowed to resettle on the land vacated days before monsoon, since no other alternative will be immediately feasible.
3) We should be compensated for loss unbearable to us, the poor, unorganised labourers.
4) The long term rehabilitation plan should be discussed and finalized with us, only after our consent and it should be such as to protect our livelihood aswell.
We think, the state Govt. cant any more lie or take false pretense in this matter and will have to take a final position on the issue of Mumbai's poor. The lakhs of voters will watch the elected representatives on this. The Struggle at Azad Maidan continues.

Adv. Shakeel Ahmed,       Mohan Chavan,         Medha Patkar

NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PEOPLE'S MOVEMENTS
Press statement 31st May 2005


The case related to the rehabilitation of the slim dwellers came before the vacation bench Justice D.Y. Chandrachud today. The Advocate General of Maharashtra pleaded on the Notice of Motion in an old case of 1999. He pleaded for change of the cut-off-date from 1995 to 2001, seeking the court's permission, referring to the interim order in the case (July 1999). Advocate Mihir Desai intervened with Advocate Vinod Shetty on behalf of the National Alliance of People's Movements, YUVA and Indira Nagar Welfare Association and brought to tye notice of the judge that, there was a final order of October 2001.

Justice Chandrachud expressed a view that he can't understand the reference of the cut-off-date. How can there be any such date when every person, the poor too, has a right to come to Mumbai. He stated that, "the poor who serve, go wherever there is a source of livelihood."

The political gimmick of declaring a cut-off-date must stop, he opined. He on the other hand, advised the Advocate General to report to the state Govt. and organize a meeting urgently with the People's Organisation and NGOs, to listen to their views and solutions proposed, to reach the consensus. He also claimed that, the constitutional rights of the people can't be denied.

He was of the opinion that, the issues are very basic and need to be taken up at the earliest. Justice Chandrachud defered the matter till the regular bench sits in after the vacation and fixed the date as 8th June 2005.

The struggle continues at Azad Maidan, with hundreds of poor men, women and children commited to seek justice through people's power.

Mohan Chavan,       Kausalya Salvi,       Medha Patkar


Notice for eviction /demolition

More: