Petitioner, a State employee, sought a writ to enforce a 1988 sanction order allotting 'upto' 500 sq.ft. The Court held this was a concession, not a property right, as he was given 250 sq.ft. The alternative prayer to allot the declined 250 sq.ft. flat was dismissed due to his earlier refusal.
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.
.[1].
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1625 OF 1998
Shri Gopal Ramchandra Potdar, )
Hindu Adult. Indian inhabitant, )
R/o.33-D, Pathare Bldg. 3rd Floor, )
Kennedy Bridge, Opera House, )
Girgaum, Mumbai-400 004. )..PETITIONER.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra, )
through the Secretary, Housing )
and Special Assistance Department,)
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. )
2. Additional Collector and )
Competent Authority (Urban Land )
Ceiling), Greater Mumbai, 10th )
Floor, New Administrative Building)
Opp.Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032. ) ..RESPONDENTS.
Mr.Sanjay Prabhu i/b. N.V.BAndiwadekar, Advocate for
the Petitioner.
Mr.P.K.Jadhav, A.G.P. for the Respondents-State.
CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.
DATED : NOVEMBER 16, 2006.
ORAL ORDER :(PER SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)
1. The petitioner who was a State Government
employee was allotted a flat in the discretionary
quota of the Chief Minister, as per his request
.[2].
vide application dated 17.3.1988. By the sanction
order dated 5.4.1988, the petitioner was informed
that flat upto 500 sq.ft. at Mumbai from the 10%
discretionary quota of Government was allotted to
him. However, by an allotment order dated
22.8.1995 the petitioner was allotted Flat of 250
sq.ft. being Flat No.66 on the 6th floor, B-Wing
of Lords Apartment at village Valpai in the
housing scheme for economically backward class
under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Holdings) Act.
2. In this Petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks an
order to direct the State Government to allot a
residential flat admeasuring 500 sq.ft. within
the limits of Greater Mumbai Urban Agglomeration
area as per the original sanction order dated
5.4.1988.
3. There is no doubt that the petitioner’s
application was for the allotment of a flat from
the 10% discretionary quota of the State
Government and that application was not by way of
exercising a vested right under the law or by way
.[3].
of his service condition. Infact, the petitioner
was seeking favour from the State Government.
Considering his request, by sanction order dated
5.4.1988 the petitioner was informed that a
decision was taken to allot him a flat "upto" 500
sq.ft. at Mumbai. The word used was "upto" 500
sq.ft. and not "of500 sq.ft.". The Government
did not make any commitment to the petitioner to
allot him a flat of 500 sq.ft.. In any case, the
allotment order dated 5.4.1988 cannot be treated
as a promise to allot him a flat of 500 sq.ft.
and, therefore, the doctrine of promissory
estoppel would not operate in his case.
4. As noted earlier, the petitioner has no
vested right to get a flat of 500 sq.ft. and the
allotment of a flat from the discretionary quota
from the State Government was a concession.
Moreover, pursuant to the sanction order dated
5.4.1988 the petitioner was allotted a flat
admeasuring 250 sq.ft.. No fault can be found
with the decision of the State Government. In
these circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner
cannot be entertained so as to issue a writ or an
.[4].
order in the nature of writ of mandamus for
allotment of a flat of 500 sq.ft. in his favour.
5. During the course of arguments, Mr.Prabhu
the learned counsel for the petitioner made an
alternate prayer for direction to the Government
to allot to the petitioner the flat of 250 sq.
ft. which had already been allotted to him as per
allotment letter dated 22.8.1995. However, it is
pertinent to note that the petitioner himself by
his letter dated 6.9.1995 has informed the
Secretary, Housing and Special Assistance
Department that he did not want the said Flat.
Hence, today after eleven years, this prayer
cannot be entertained by us.
6. In the premises, this Petition fails and
the same is hereby dismissed. Rule stands
discharged.
[DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.]
.[5].
[SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can issue a writ of mandamus to direct the State Government to allot a 500 sq.ft. flat given the sanction order used the word 'upto'.
Whether the petitioner has a vested right to compel the State Government to allot a flat of 500 sq.ft. or if it remains a discretionary concession.
Whether the prayer to allot the previously allotted 250 sq.ft. flat that the petitioner had declined eleven years earlier is maintainable.
Shri Gopal Ramchandra Potdar
The State of Maharashtra
Additional Collector and Competent Authority (Urban Land Ceiling)
DR.S.Radhakrishnan
Smt.V.K.Tahilramani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court