Case Note & Summary
The appellants, eight members of Goregaon Unnati Cooperative Housing Society, residing in chawls numbered 19, 20, 21 and 24, filed a dispute before the Co-operative Court, Mumbai, challenging the society's decision to redevelop those chawls. They contended that the redevelopment resolutions and agreements were invalid, and sought interim relief to restrain the development. The Co-operative Court, on 12 September 2008, refused to grant interim relief; the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court dismissed their appeal on 3 October 2008. The appellants then filed Writ Petition No. 7389 of 2008 in the Bombay High Court challenging the refusal. During pendency, MHADA issued a summary eviction notice dated 27 February 2009 under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, directing them to vacate within 48 hours. The appellants challenged that notice by a separate writ petition, which was dismissed by a Division Bench on 13 April 2009. They appealed to the Supreme Court by SLP (Civil) No. 10173/2009, which, on 9 April 2010, set aside the High Court order without examining merits, permitted withdrawal of that petition, and allowed all contentions to be raised in the pending Writ Petition 7389/2008. MHADA then withdrew the earlier eviction order, issued fresh individual notices, gave hearings, and passed a reasoned order on 11 January 2011 again directing the appellants to shift to transit accommodation within seven days, failing which they would be summarily evicted. The writ petition was amended to challenge this fresh order. The learned single Judge heard the matter, considering two issues: whether the Co-operative Court erred in refusing interim relief, and whether the MHADA eviction order was valid. The single Judge found no infirmity in the refusal of interim relief, noting that the Cooperative Court had not committed any error, and further held that the MHADA order was passed after following natural justice and was in accordance with law. The single Judge added that if the appellants ultimately succeeded in their dispute, respondents would not be permitted to claim equity. The appellants then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench, after hearing counsel, dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the single Judge. It held that the refusal of interim relief was a matter of discretion and not perverse, and that the MHADA eviction order was procedurally proper, having been issued after hearing and thus valid under Section 95A. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the orders below.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Interim Relief - Discretionary Refusal Not Perverse - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Appellants, members of a society, filed dispute challenging redevelopment resolutions and sought interim stay; Co-operative Court refused relief; learned single Judge found no jurisdictional error or material irregularity - Held that no case for interference under writ jurisdiction was made out (Paras 2-3, 5).
B) MHADA - Summary Eviction - Section 95A, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 - Compliance with Natural Justice - MHADA initially issued an eviction order without hearing, which was withdrawn; fresh order passed after giving hearing and reasoned decision - Held that the subsequent order under Section 95A was in accordance with law and not liable to be set aside (Paras 4, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned single Judge erred in confirming the Cooperative Court's refusal of interim relief and upholding MHADA's eviction order under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976.
Final Decision
Letters Patent Appeal dismissed. The order of the single Judge confirming the Cooperative Court's refusal of interim relief and upholding MHADA's eviction order under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 is affirmed.
Law Points
- Interim relief in cooperative disputes is discretionary and not to be interfered with unless perverse
- summary eviction under Section 95A of the MHADA Act requires compliance with natural justice
- High Court's writ jurisdiction against interlocutory orders is limited.
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (08) 90
Letters Patent Appeal No. 202 of 2011 in Writ Petition No. 7389 of 2008 with Civil Application No. 272 of 2011
P.B. Majmudar, Mridula Bhatkar
J.J. Bhatt, Y.C. Naidu, Kamlesh Kharade, Nidhi Singh (for appellants); Aspi Chinoy, P.K. Samdani, A.A. Joshi (for respondent No.1); P.K. Dhakephalkar, V.C. Ghosalkar (for respondent No.2); G.W. Mattos (for respondent Nos.3-5)
Kiran Baburao Vanjari, Shilpa Kamlesh Shah, Tukaram Raghunath Kerkar, Bapurao K. Taroo, Jagdish B. Totade, Pauline A. Pais, Suman R. Karnik, Pradeep P. Shriyan
M/s. Goregaon Unnati CHS Ltd., M/s. S.D. Construction, The State of Maharashtra through Deputy Registrar, Mumbai Area and Housing Development Board, Executive Engineer, Bandra Division
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against dismissal of a writ petition challenging the refusal of interim relief by the Cooperative Court and an eviction order under Section 95A of the MHADA Act.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought interim relief to stay the redevelopment and prevent their eviction pending the cooperative dispute.
Filing Reason
The appellants believed that the redevelopment resolutions were not properly passed and that the MHADA eviction order was procedurally flawed.
Previous Decisions
Cooperative Court refused interim relief on 12-09-2008; Cooperative Appellate Court upheld on 03-10-2008; Single Judge dismissed writ petition on 21-07-2011; Supreme Court earlier set aside an earlier MHADA eviction order and permitted withdrawal of related writ petition, allowing contentions to be raised in the present writ petition.
Issues
Whether the Cooperative Court was justified in refusing interim relief.
Whether the MHADA order dated 11-01-2011 under Section 95A of the MHADA Act, 1976 was valid.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants contended that the redevelopment resolutions were invalid as they had not consented and that the MHADA eviction order lacked proper procedure.
Respondents argued that most members had already shifted to transit accommodation, development was stalled, and the revised eviction order was passed after full hearing and was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi
The Cooperative Court's discretionary refusal of interim relief was not perverse, and the MHADA eviction order under Section 95A passed after complying with natural justice was valid.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned single Judge also observed in the order that in case the dispute filed by the present appellants is allowed by the Cooperative Court, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 will not be permitted to claim any equity even if they proceed with the development work.
We, therefore, allow this appeal in part, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 13.4.2009 without examining it on merits, and permit the appellants to withdraw W.P. (L) No. 431/2009 and urge all their contentions in regard to validity of several resolutions in W.P. No. 7389/2008 which is pending.
Procedural History
The appellants filed a dispute before the Co-operative Court, Mumbai, which refused interim relief on 12-09-2008. The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 03-10-2008. The appellants then filed Writ Petition No. 7389 of 2008. During its pendency, MHADA issued a summary eviction notice dated 27-02-2009 under Section 95A. The appellants challenged that by Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 431 of 2009, which was dismissed by a Division Bench on 13-04-2009. The Supreme Court, in SLP (Civil) No. 10173/2009, set aside that order on 09-04-2010, allowing withdrawal and permitting all contentions to be raised in the pending Writ Petition 7389/2008. MHADA then withdrew its earlier order and issued fresh notices, and after hearing passed a reasoned order on 11-01-2011 directing the appellants to vacate within seven days. The writ petition was amended to challenge this fresh order. The single Judge heard the matter and dismissed the writ petition on 21-07-2011, upholding both the refusal of interim relief and the MHADA eviction order. The present Letters Patent Appeal was filed against that dismissal and has been dismissed on 08-08-2011.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976: 95A
