Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Police Head Constable, challenged the allotment of a police residential quarter to Respondent No.3, a Stenographer working in the Police Department, claiming that the allotment was illegal as the quarters were meant only for police personnel. The petitioner had applied for a quarter in A/15, Shivshankar C.H.S. Ltd., Mulund (E), but the same was allotted to Respondent No.3 on 1st July 2015. The petitioner had previously been allotted other quarters on 22nd September 2014 and 31st March 2015, but he declined both. He then filed an Original Application before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on 15th June 2016. The High Court noted that the rules framed by the Commissioner of Police for allotment of quarters do not expressly exclude ministerial staff. The court observed that the petitioner had declined earlier allotments and thus had no right to challenge the allotment to Respondent No.3. The court held that the allotment was not illegal and dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Police Quarters Allotment - Eligibility of Ministerial Staff - The Commissioner of Police framed Rule 3 for allotment of quarters, which does not expressly exclude ministerial staff from eligibility. The court held that the allotment to a Stenographer (ministerial staff) was not illegal as the rules do not bar such allotment. (Paras 3-5)
B) Service Law - Police Quarters Allotment - Right to Challenge - A petitioner who has declined earlier allotments of quarters cannot challenge a subsequent allotment to another employee. The court held that the petitioner had no vested right to a particular quarter and his conduct disentitled him to relief. (Paras 5-6)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Discretionary Relief - The court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner failed to establish any legal right or illegality in the impugned allotment. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allotment of a police residential quarter to a ministerial staff (Stenographer) working in the Police Department is illegal, and whether the petitioner has a right to challenge such allotment.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Allotment of police residential quarters is governed by rules framed by the Commissioner of Police
- which do not expressly exclude ministerial staff
- a petitioner who has declined earlier allotments cannot challenge a subsequent allotment to another employee
- the remedy of a writ petition is not available when the petitioner has no vested right.
Case Details
Writ Petition No. 178 of 2017
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, M.S. Karnik
Mr. Aditya Pratap (Petitioner), Mr. A.L. Patki (Respondent Nos. 1 & 2), Mr. R.S. Khadapkar (Respondent No.3)
Commissioner of Police for Greater Mumbai and Ors.
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 the allotment of a police residential quarter to a ministerial staff member.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the allotment order dated 1st July 2015 allotting quarter A/15, Shivshankar C.H.S. Ltd., Mulund (E) to Respondent No.3 and sought allotment of the same quarter to himself.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that the allotment of the police residential quarter to Respondent No.3, a Stenographer (ministerial staff), was illegal as the quarters were meant only for police personnel.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's Original Application No. 774 of 2015 on 15th June 2016.
Issues
Whether the allotment of a police residential quarter to a ministerial staff (Stenographer) is illegal under the rules framed by the Commissioner of Police.
Whether the petitioner has a right to challenge the allotment when he had declined earlier allotments.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that as per Rule 3 framed by the Commissioner of Police, quarters are meant for police personnel from Constable to Deputy Commissioner and above, and nowhere is it mentioned that ministerial staff can be allotted such quarters. He pointed out that Respondent No.3 is a Stenographer and not a police personnel.
Respondents argued that the rules do not expressly exclude ministerial staff and that the petitioner had declined earlier allotments, thus he had no right to challenge the impugned allotment.
Ratio Decidendi
The allotment of police residential quarters to ministerial staff is not illegal if the rules do not expressly exclude them. A petitioner who has declined earlier allotments cannot challenge a subsequent allotment to another employee, as he has no vested right to a particular quarter.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner had earlier submitted two representations dated 11th March, 2014 and 10th October, 2014 for allotment of police residential quarter.
By order dated 22nd September, 2014 the Petitioner was allotted a quarter but he did not accept the same.
Again by order dated 31st March, 2015 the Petitioner was admittedly allotted residential quarter No.C406, Himgiri Building, Mulund Police Quarters, Mulund (W). However, the said quarter was not occupied by the Petitioner and the Petitioner submitted a representation on 13th April, 2015 for cancellation of the allotment.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Original Application No. 774 of 2015 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed on 15th June 2016. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
