Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed by a co-operative housing society challenging orders dated 8 June 2016 and 8 July 2016 passed by the Minister of Social Justice and Special Assistance and the Deputy Chief Engineer (Building Proposal) of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai respectively. The petitioner society was allotted a plot under the PWR-219 scheme, a government initiative to provide housing for backward classes. MHADA constructed three buildings on the plot in the 1970s comprising 60 flats, which were allotted to the society's members. Over time, the buildings deteriorated, leading to repeated notices under section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, declaring them ruinous and dangerous. The society initiated redevelopment and appointed respondent no. 4 as the developer. A development agreement was executed in 2007 and amended in 2009, with broad member consent. In 2008, respondent no. 4 sought a no-objection certificate (NOC) from the Social Welfare Department, but the department replied that no provision existed for granting NOC under the scheme. The society proceeded with redevelopment, obtaining various permissions. However, in 2016, the impugned orders were passed, effectively halting the project. The court issued Rule and, with consent of parties, made it returnable forthwith. The matter was heard and reserved for judgment. The judgment sets out extensive factual background but does not, in the extracted portion, record the final decision or reasons.
Issue of Consideration
Whether prior permission of the Social Welfare Department is mandatory for redevelopment of a plot allotted under the PWR-219 Scheme by using plot FSI and additional FSI by way of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR); and whether the orders dated 8 June 2016 and 8 July 2016 are legal and valid.
Final Decision
Rule made returnable forthwith with consent of parties; final determination not extracted in the provided text.
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (12) 66
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1939 OF 2016
S. C. Dharmadhikari, B. P. Colabawalla
N. N. Bhadrashete, G. S. Godbole, Milind More, Milind Deshmukh
Dinanath Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
1. The State of Maharashtra, 2. The Hon'ble Minister, Social Justice and Special Assistance Division, 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, 4. M/s. Sagar Developers, 5. Mr. Pravin Samadhan Bhotkar, 6. Deputy Chief Engineer, Mumbai Building Proposal, Municipal Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders dated 8 June 2016 and 8 July 2016 passed by the Minister of Social Justice and Special Assistance and the Deputy Chief Engineer (Building Proposal) of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, which allegedly restricted the redevelopment of the petitioner society's plot allotted under the PWR-219 scheme.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari or direction to quash and set aside the orders dated 8 June 2016 and 8 July 2016.
Filing Reason
The impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction and in contravention of the applicable regulations and circulars, thereby obstructing the redevelopment of a dilapidated property that had been declared dangerous by the municipal corporation.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, a consumer complaint (No. 52 of 2008) filed by 14 members challenging the development agreement was dismissed on merits on 7 June 2011. Ad-interim status quo granted in that complaint was vacated on 20 February 2009. No appeals or further proceedings are mentioned.
Issues
Whether prior permission of the Social Welfare Department is mandatory for redevelopment of a plot allotted under the PWR-219 Scheme
Whether the circular dated 26 June 2009 imposes a legally binding requirement for government permission before redevelopment
Whether the orders dated 8 June 2016 and 8 July 2016 are illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction
Judgment Excerpts
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of both sides, Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari or any other order or direction in the nature thereof calling for the records and proceedings in respect of orders dated 8th June, 2016 and 8th July, 2016 passed by respondent nos. 2 and 6 and after ascertaining their legality, propriety and correctness, the same be quashed and set aside.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed on an unspecified date. The court heard the parties at the admission stage and, by consent, issued Rule and made it returnable forthwith. The matter was then argued and reserved for judgment on 30 September 2016. Judgment was pronounced on 8 December 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960:
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: 354, 475-A(1)(a)
- Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991: Regulation 34
