Disposed

Mrs. Gulabidevi Kunjbihari Dhobi v. the Vice President and Chief Executive Officer Mhada and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC1 Apr 2014WP/1609/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to direct allotment of accommodation where disputed questions of fact exist. The court directed the MHADA authorities to decide the petitioner's representation within 8 weeks, granting a personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Direction to MHADA authorities to decide petitioner's representation within 8 weeks, on merits, and in accordance with law, after granting personal hearing.

Mrs. Gulabidevi Kunjbihari Dhobi Vs the Vice President… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP. 1609-13

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 1609 OF 2013

¶5

Gulabdevi Kunjbihari Dhobi ... Petitioner Vs. The Vice President and the Chief Executive Officer of MHADA & Ors. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Ramesh Rammurthy, Saikumar Rammurthy, for the Petitioner. Ms. Sharmila Deshmukh, for the Respondents.

¶7

¶8

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & A. K. MENON, JJ.

¶9

DATE : APRIL 1, 2014

¶10

PC.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. By this petition which is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking appropriate writ, order and direction directing the Respondents to allot permanent alternate accommodation in lieu of old tenement. It is submitted that the decree has been passed by the City Civil Court in favour of the Petitioner on 15.1.2002, in which the MHADA has been directed by the City Civil Court to act in accordance with the directions, contained in paragraph 21 of the said judgment. It is submitted that in view of the decree passed by the City Civil Court a direction may be given by this Court to MHADA to grant permanent alternate accommodation to the

¶12

1 / 2

¶13

WP. 1609-13

¶14

Petitioner in the reconstructed building.

¶15

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents invited our attention to paragraph 9 and 10 of the petition. It is submitted in paragraph 9, the Petitioner has expressed an apprehension that MHADA will not grant residential tenement to the Petitioner. It is submitted that in paragraph 10, it is specifically averred that the Petitioner has made representation to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 16.4.2013. It is submitted that MHADA Authority will decide the said representation within a time bound schedule.

¶16

In our view, the reliefs claimed by the Petitioner in the petition cannot be granted while exercising writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, since it has raised the disputed question of facts, which needs to be gone by the MHADA Authorities. We, therefore, direct the MHADA Authorities to decide the representation of the Petitioner dated 16.4.2013 expeditiously within a period of 8 weeks, on merits and in accordance with law. Respondents shall give personal hearing to the Petitioner, who shall produce relevant documents, including the judgment and decree of the City Civil Court.

¶17

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid

¶18

terms.

¶19

Vinayak Halemath

¶20

2 / 2

Mrs. Gulabidevi Kunjbihari Dhobi v. the Vice President and Chief Executive Officer Mhada and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Gulabidevi Kunjbihari Dhobi v. the Vice President and Chief Executive Officer Mhada and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Maha-Goolestan Co-Operative and 3 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and 9 Others

Avinash Keshaorao Zade Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Jp Morgan Asset Management India Private Limited and 2 Others Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Others

M/S Shaman Used Cars Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Abdul Karim Abdullah Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

P.G. Kushte and Ors. Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Developmement Authority and Others