Dismissed

Rajesh S/O Deoba Dabhade (Dead) Thr. Lrs Smt. Sangita Wd/O Rajesh Dabhade and 2 Others v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board Mahada Having Its Office at Gruh Nirman Bhawan

Bombay HC7 Jul 2014WP/1465/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench heard a writ petition challenging the cancellation of a housing allotment. The court found the original application fraudulent, noted no allotment letter was ever issued, and dismissed the petition as the cause of action did not survive the original petitioner's death.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajesh S/O Deoba Dabhade (Dead) Thr. Lrs Smt… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp1465-13

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION No.1465 OF 2013

¶5

Rajesh s/o Deoba Dabhade through Lrs Smt. Sangita wd/o Rajesh Dabhade and others.

¶6

Vrs.

¶7

Mah. Housing and Area Development Board (MHADA), Mumbai through its Chairman.

¶8

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

¶11

Shri S.G. Joshi, counsel for the petitioners. Shri H.N. Verma, counsel for respondent sole.

¶12

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND V.K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 7 TH JULY , 2014 .

¶14

By this petition, the petitioners seek a declaration that the action on the part of the respondent MHADA in deleting the name of the original petitioner from the list of allottees is arbitrary, illegal and is liable to be set aside. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondent to allot tenement no. 2103 in Malvani, Malad, Mumbai to the petitioner.

¶15

Shri Rajesh Dabhade, the original petitioner had applied for grant of a tenement in Malvani, Malad, Mumbai in the building sought to be constructed by respondent MHADA for the persons in lower income group. The advertisement was issued by Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and the original petitioner applied for the tenement in pursuance of the advertisement. A lucky draw was held on 31.5.2011 and it is the case of the original

¶16

wp1465-13

¶17

¶18

petitioner that he was chosen in the lucky draw for allotment of one of the tenements. The original petitioner submitted the necessary documents to the respondent Board and was expecting the allotment letter in respect of the tenement. On inquiry, according to the original petitioner, the original petitioner became aware that the allotment was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had given the mobile number of the brother of the wife of the petitioner’s brother for correspondence. During the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner expired and his legal heirs are brought on record. The legal heirs seek the allotment of the tenement, as according to them, the cancellation of the allotment in favour of the original petitioner was bad in law.

¶19

It is submitted on behalf of the respondent board that it was found by the Board that there were large scale illegalities in applying for the tenement in pursuance of the advertisement in question and hence a High Power Committee was constituted. It is submitted that an inquiry was made by the inquiry committee and it was found that out of 425 applicants, 334 applicants were found to be bogus or fictitious. It is stated that the petitioner is one of these 334 applicants who have been found to have fraudulently applied for the tenement. It is submitted that at least 22 applicants gave the mobile number of Shri Lalit Wankhede, who the petitioner claims to be the brother of the wife of the petitioner’s brother. It is submitted that the original petitioner was granted a fair opportunity, in as much as the original petitioner was asked to remain present on 3.1.2012. It is submitted on behalf of the Board that the petition ought to have been filed by the petitioner at the Principal seat as the

¶20

wp1465-13

¶21

¶22

tenements are situated in Malad, Mumbai.

¶23

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent, it appears that there is no merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the action of the respondent board in cancelling the allotment in favour of the original petitioner is bad in law. It appears from the affidavit-in-reply that the respondent Board had never issued any allotment letter in favour of the original petitioner and had also not agreed to allot any tenement in favour of the original petitioner. It was found in an inquiry by the High Power Committee that the application filed by the original petitioner was not genuine inasmuch 21 other candidates had also given the mobile number of Shri Wankhade for correspondence. It is most unlikely that 22 candidates would give the same phone number for correspondence. It was found by the High Power Committee that Shri Wankhede was one of the 17 agents who were found to have indulged in the fraud in filing bogus applications in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondent Board. It is most unlikely that 22 persons would give the mobile number of Shri Lalit Wankhede for correspondence. The original petitioner was not expected to give the mobile number of the brother of the wife of his brother. Any genuine candidate would have given his own mobile number or at least the mobile number of his wife but not the mobile number of the so called brother of the wife of his brother, as it is claimed to have been done in this case, by the original petitioner. There is no material placed on record to prove that Shri Wankhede is the brother of the wife of the brother of the original

¶24

wp1465-13

¶25

¶26

petitioner. In any case, no applicant could be expected to give the mobile number of the brother of the wife of his brother for correspondence. Moreover, it was stated in the application by the original petitioner that he is in service whereas it is stated in the affidavit that the original petitioner is doing business. We also do not find any merit in the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the original petitioner was not granted a fair opportunity of hearing before the alleged cancellation of allotment. Firstly, there was no allotment made in favour of the original petitioner. Secondly, the original petitioner has himself asserted that the petitioner was served with notice dated 22.12.2011, that he would be heard on 3.1.2012. In any case, the original petitioner has expired and the cause of action may not survive after his death.

¶27

Since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶28

JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

Hirekhan

Rajesh S/O Deoba Dabhade (Dead) Thr. Lrs Smt. Sangita Wd/O Rajesh Dabhade and 2 Others v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board Mahada Having Its Office at Gruh Nirman Bhawan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajesh S/O Deoba Dabhade (Dead) Thr. Lrs Smt. Sangita Wd/O Rajesh Dabhade and 2 Others v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board Mahada Having Its Office at Gruh Nirman Bhawan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narendra Shriram Sukhalikar and Others Vs M.S.E.B. and Others

Ku. Seema Mukunda Nannaware Vs Director /President Schedule Tribe Caste Scrutiny Committee Adivasi Vikas Bhvan, Nagpur

Sau. Archana Sanjay Bhelkar Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Dept. of Education and 4 Others

Premchand S/O Alasing Chouvan Vs the Chef Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Buldana

Dr. Smt. Kavita W/O Anand Dhabarde Vs Anand S/O Bhanudas Dhabarde

Shri. Bhaskar S/O Mayaram Barayya Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Dept. of Higher Education and Others