Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shamrav Dhondiba Kamble, a 76-year-old former mill worker, lost his job due to the 1982 mill strike and resided in his native village. Under Regulation 58 of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, amended in 2001, residential premises were to be provided for mill workers on mill lands. In a lottery conducted on 9th May 2016, the petitioner was declared successful and was asked to submit documents to prove eligibility. After verification, he was held eligible and a Provisional Offer Letter (POL) dated 3rd May 2018 was issued, allotting him Room No.108, 1st Floor, Building No.1/B, Prakash Cotton Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai. The POL required him to deposit Rs.9,50,000, with 10% (Rs.95,000) by 16th June 2018 and 90% by 15th August 2018, with interest at 11% for delay. The petitioner failed to make any payment and sent several representations between December 2018 and June 2021 seeking extension of time. All representations were rejected on the ground that he had not paid the first installment of 10%, and as per the revised policy, extension could only be granted to those who had paid the first installment. The petitioner challenged the cancellation of allotment and the rejection of his extension requests by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that the Resolution No.6789 dated 12th October 2018 relied upon by MHADA was not strictly applicable to the petitioner as it pertained to open market allotments. On 7th August 2024, the court directed MHADA's counsel to take instructions from the Vice-President, as the petitioner claimed he had arranged the amount and was ready to pay reasonable interest. By order dated 12th August 2024, the court directed that if the petitioner deposits Rs.9,50,000 within ten days, MHADA shall immediately hand over possession, subject to further orders. The petitioner deposited the amount on 21st August 2024 and possession was handed over the same day. The court considered the petitioner's age and hardships and held that the rejection of extension was not justified. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing MHADA to regularize the allotment, with the petitioner to pay interest as per policy.
Headnote
A) Housing Law - Mill Workers' Housing - Cancellation of Allotment - Regulation 58, Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 - The petitioner, a 76-year-old former mill worker, was allotted a premises in a lottery but failed to pay Rs.9,50,000 within the stipulated time. His representations for extension were rejected on the ground that he had not paid the first installment of 10%. The court, considering his age and hardship, directed MHADA to accept the payment and hand over possession, subject to final orders. Held that the rejection was not justified in the peculiar facts and the petitioner should be given an opportunity to pay with interest. (Paras 1-6)
B) Administrative Law - Extension of Time - Policy Applicability - MHADA Resolution No.6789 dated 12.10.2018 - The resolution relied upon by MHADA was held not strictly applicable to the petitioner as it pertained to open market allotments, not mill workers' allotments. Held that the policy for extension of time for payment of second installment applies only to those who have paid the first installment. (Paras 3, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of allotment of a residential premises to a mill worker for non-payment of the requisite amount within the prescribed time was legal and valid, and whether the petitioner is entitled to extension of time for payment.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 15th October 2019 and all subsequent rejection orders. The court directed MHADA to regularize the allotment of the said premises in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner shall pay interest on the delayed payment as per the policy of MHADA. The possession already handed over to the petitioner on 21.08.2024 shall stand confirmed.
Law Points
- Extension of time for payment
- Cancellation of allotment
- Mill workers' housing
- MHADA policy
- Section 164 MHADA Act
- Regulation 58 DCR 1991
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (9) 40
Writ Petition (L) No. 38501 of 2022
Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale i/b. Mr. Vinayak Phadke for Petitioner; Mr. Nikhil Adkine i/b. Mr. Hassan Khan for Respondent No.1
Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board (A MHADA Unit) & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging cancellation of allotment of residential premises to a mill worker for non-payment of the requisite amount within the prescribed time.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the order cancelling allotment and to direct MHADA to provide sufficient time to deposit the amount as per the provisional offer letter, and ultimately allot the premises.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's allotment of a premises was cancelled because he failed to pay Rs.9,50,000 within the time stipulated in the Provisional Offer Letter, and his requests for extension of time were rejected.
Previous Decisions
The Deputy Chief Officer, Dharavi Redevelopment Project/Mill, MHADA passed the impugned order dated 15th October 2019 cancelling the allotment. The petitioner's representations dated 21.12.2018, 26.12.2018, 28.12.2018, 26.08.2019, 10.01.2020, 15.01.2020, and 16.06.2021 seeking extension were all rejected.
Issues
Whether the cancellation of allotment of the premises to the petitioner for non-payment of the amount within the prescribed time was legal and valid.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to extension of time for payment of the amount as per the Provisional Offer Letter.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he is a 76-year-old senior citizen and former mill worker who lost his job in the 1982 strike, and he faced hardships in arranging the amount. He collected the amount with great difficulty and is ready to pay reasonable interest for the delay.
Respondent MHADA argued that as per the policy, extension of time for payment of the second installment is applicable only to those who have paid the first installment of 10%. Since the petitioner did not pay the first installment, extension cannot be granted. They relied on Resolution No.6789 dated 12.10.2018.
Ratio Decidendi
The rejection of the petitioner's request for extension of time for payment was not justified in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, considering the petitioner's age, hardships, and the fact that he had arranged the amount and was ready to pay interest. The policy relied upon by MHADA was not strictly applicable to the petitioner as it pertained to open market allotments. The court has the power under Article 226 to grant relief in the interest of justice.
Judgment Excerpts
By the impugned order, allotment of Room No.108, 1st Floor, Building No.1/B, Prakash Cotton Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 to the Petitioner in lottery conducted for mill workers has been cancelled on the ground that the Petitioner has failed to pay the requisite amount of Rs.9,50,000/- within the prescribed time of Provisional Offer Letter dated 3rd May 2018.
This Court by order dated 12th August 2024 passed the following direction: 'The Petitioner who is personally present in Court states that now he has made arrangement for said amount of Rs.9,50,000/- and the same can be deposited with the MHADA within a period of ten days from today. ... if the said amount is deposited with the MHADA within a period of ten days, the MHADA shall immediately handover possession of the said Room ... to the Petitioner, subject to further orders to be passed in this Writ Petition.'
Accordingly, the Petitioner has deposited with the MHADA said amount of Rs.9,50,000/- on 21.08.2024 and possession of the said premises has been handed over to the Petitioner immediately on the very day.
Procedural History
The petitioner was declared successful in a lottery for mill workers on 9th May 2016. A Provisional Offer Letter was issued on 3rd May 2018 requiring payment of Rs.9,50,000. The petitioner failed to pay and sent representations for extension from December 2018 to June 2021, all of which were rejected. The impugned order cancelling allotment was passed on 15th October 2019. The petitioner filed the present writ petition in 2022. On 7th August 2024, the court directed MHADA to take instructions. On 12th August 2024, the court directed that upon deposit of Rs.9,50,000 within ten days, possession be handed over. The petitioner deposited the amount on 21st August 2024 and possession was handed over. The final judgment was delivered on 4th September 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976: Section 164
- Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991: Regulation 58
