Petitioner challenged an allotment letter issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority Secretary. The court held the Secretary acted per a competent authority order and dismissed claims challenging residence facts via photopasses, deeming such inquiries beyond writ jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| IN | THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BO |
MBAY |
|---|---|---|
| ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISD |
ICTION | |
| WRIT PETITION NO.1862 OF |
2005 | |
| Dharavi | Vivekanand Coop Hsg.Scty Ltd.. P |
etitioner |
| ver | sus | |
| 1. |
State of Maharashtra ors .... Resp |
ondents |
| Mr.D.S.Sak | halkar for |
Petr |
| Mr.Milind | More AGP for Respt |
no.1 |
| Ms | A.R.Joshi for Respt |
no.2 |
| Mr.S.V.Ch | avan i/b Utangale & Co for Respt nos.3& |
4 |
| Mr | S.G.Surana for Respt no. |
7 |
| CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, |
J |
|
| DATED : 9th August, |
2005. | |
| P.C. | ||
| 1. | Heard learned counsel for the |
parties. |
| 2. | The first objection of the petitioner to |
the |
| impugned | letter dated 19th June, 2002 is that |
the |
| Secretary, | Slum Rehabilitation Authority is not |
the |
| competent | authority and therefore he had |
no |
| authority | to issue the letter. Learned |
counsel |
| submits | that it is only the competent authority |
who |
| can | direct inclusion of a name in the list |
of |
| allottees. | Learned counsel for the resp |
ondents |
| points | out that in the letter itself the S |
ecretary |
| has | stated that the order had been passed by |
the |
| Ward | Officer, G North Ward on 15th July 1995 |
and |
| that | the names of respondent nos. 6 and 7 |
were |
| included | at serial nos. 142 and 143 of the |
list |
| prepared | and the order has been passed by |
the |
| competent | authority and not by the Secretary |
who |
2
has only directed implementation of the said order.
The first objection therefore has no merit.
| 2. | It w |
as sec |
ondly | cont | ended that the |
photopasses |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| which | were | issue |
d to |
the | respond | ent nos. 6 |
and 7 |
| were n |
ot | proper | and | the | y w |
ere not actua |
lly residing |
| there. | This | is a |
que | stion | of fact which |
cannot be |
|
| investigated | in | ex |
ercise | of | the writ |
jurisdiction. | |
| Photopasses | were | issued | for | the |
first time |
in the |
|
| year | 1985 | and | renewed | in | the | year 1998. |
It is too |
| late | in | the | day | to | contend | that the |
photopasses |
were wrongly issued and in any event in exercise of
writ jurisdiction such an enquiry is not possible.
is hereby dismissed.
D.G.KARNIK, J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Secretary of Slum Rehabilitation Authority was the competent authority to issue the letter for allotment.
Whether the High Court can inquire into factual disputes regarding the residence and validity of photopasses under its writ jurisdiction.
Dharavi Vivekanand Coop Hsg Scty Ltd.
State of Maharashtra
Vivekanand Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third and Fourth Respondents
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
