Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Milind Dashrath Narvekar, is the chief promoter of a proposed cooperative housing society named 'Shri Ganesh Sai High Court Employees’ Cooperative Housing Society (Proposed)', comprising nearly 400 employees of the Bombay High Court. The society was formed with the objective of providing affordable housing to its members, who are state government employees working in the High Court. The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2019 seeking a direction to the State of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to allot land to the society under the provisions of the MHADA Act, 1976. The petitioner alleged that despite repeated representations and a long-standing proposal, the respondents had failed to take any decision on the allotment, causing undue hardship to the employees who had been waiting for years for a home. The legal issues considered were whether the respondents were obligated to allot land to the society, and whether the delay in processing the proposal was arbitrary and violative of the employees' fundamental rights. The petitioner argued that the society had a legitimate expectation of allotment based on government policies and the MHADA Act, and that the inaction amounted to a denial of the right to housing under Article 21 of the Constitution. The respondents, represented by the Advocate General and senior counsel for MHADA, contended that the allotment process was subject to availability of land and that the society's proposal was under consideration. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the prolonged delay of over four years was unreasonable and arbitrary. The court directed the respondents to process the society's proposal within 12 weeks and communicate a decision, emphasizing that the right to housing is a fundamental right and that administrative authorities must act promptly. The court also noted the tragic human condition of the employees who had been in a 'litigation and negotiation wilderness' for years. The petition was allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the proposal and pass a reasoned order within the stipulated time.
Headnote
A) Land Law - Allotment of Land - Cooperative Housing Society - MHADA Act, 1976 - Sections 13, 14, 22 - The petitioner, a promoter of a proposed cooperative housing society of High Court employees, sought allotment of land from MHADA. The court held that the State and MHADA have a duty to consider the society's proposal in a reasonable time and cannot indefinitely delay allotment. The court directed the respondents to process the proposal within 12 weeks and communicate a decision. (Paras 1-50) B) Administrative Law - Legitimate Expectation - Delay in Decision-Making - The court held that the prolonged delay of over four years in processing the society's proposal, despite repeated representations, amounted to arbitrary exercise of power and violated the legitimate expectation of the employees. The court emphasized that administrative authorities must act promptly and fairly. (Paras 3-45) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Housing - Article 21 - The court recognized that the right to adequate housing is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State's failure to allot land to the society of government employees, who have served the judiciary, was held to be a violation of their right to life and dignity. (Paras 3-50)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State and MHADA are obligated to allot land to the proposed cooperative housing society of High Court employees under the MHADA Act, 1976, and whether the prolonged delay in processing the society's proposal is arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to process the society's proposal within 12 weeks and communicate a reasoned decision. Rule was made absolute.
Law Points
- Land allotment
- Cooperative housing society
- Government employees
- MHADA Act
- 1976
- Writ of mandamus
- Legitimate expectation
- Administrative delay
