Disposed

Girni Kamgar Karmachari Niwara and Kalyankari Sangh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC28 Jun 2016NMW/339/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court considered a PIL regarding allotment of tenements to Mumbai mill workers under Regulation 58.MHADA submitted data showing construction progress.The Court held that remedies lie with the Monitoring Committee and directed the petitioner to submit detailed grievances within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make a detailed representation to the Monitoring Committee within six weeks on grievances; PIL and associated proceedings disposed of.

Girni Kamgar Karmachari Niwara and Kalyankari… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

22-PIL-115-12.doc

¶2

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

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 115 OF 2012

¶4

WITH

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 339 OF 2011

¶6

WITH

¶7

CHAMBER SUMMONS (ST.) NO. 141 OF 2016

¶8

¶9

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 115 OF 2012

¶10

Girni Kamgar Karmchari Niwara & …Petitioner Kalyankari Sangh Versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …Respondents

¶11

Mr. I.A. Saiyed, for the Petitioner. Mr. G.W. Mattos, for Respondent No. 1 State. Mr. P.G. Lad, for Respondent No. 2 MHADA. Mr. S.S. Pathak, for Applicant in CHS

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 28th June 2016

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The issues raised in this Public Interest Litigation are concerning allotment of tenements to workers of 58 Cotton Textile Mills (for short “mills”) in the City of Mumbai.

¶15

Sharayu . 1 / 8

¶16

22-PIL-115-12.doc

¶17

2. Today learned Counsel appearing for the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (' MHADA ') has placed on record, a compilation showing progress of redevelopment of the lands of the mills in the city of Mumbai. The redevelopment is in terms of Regulation 58 of the Development Control Regulations for the city of Mumbai. The compilation tendered on record today is taken on record and marked “ A-2 ” for identification. The compilation gives the status of lands of total 58 mills in the city of Mumbai. The compilation records that out of lands of 58 mills, the share of MHADA in 11 lands is not yet finalised. Out of remaining 47 lands, no share has been provided to MHADA in 10. It is pointed out that in case of 37 lands, on total area 16.14 Hectare, it is possible to construct total 24,700 tenements. Out of which 16,900 tenements will be constructed for the mill workers and 7,800 by way of transit accommodation. It is pointed out that out of the said 37 lands, area of 13.57 Hectare is already in possession of MHADA. In case of 18 lands, construction work of 10,165 tenements has been completed covering lands admeasuring 6.83 Hectare, out of which 6,948 are for mill workers and 3,204 tenements are by way of transit accommodation for the occupants of cessed buildings. It is pointed out that out of 6,948 tenements, 23 have been reserved for the legal

¶18

Sharayu . 2 / 8

¶19

22-PIL-115-12.doc

¶20

representatives of those who died in Sanyukta Maharashtra Movement. It is pointed out that for 6,948 tenements, a draw was conducted on 28th June 2012 and till today, 5,900 mill workers have been placed in possession of the tenements. In case of 1,025 tenements, the possession could not be hand over on various grounds, such as (a) allottee was found to be ineligible or (b) that allottee has not produced relevant documents or (c) that the process of verification is not yet over.

¶21

3. In addition to above tenements, as per direction of State Government issued on 9th January 2014, construction of 9,774 tenements was commenced on 8 lands. Out of said 9,774 tenements, 6,802 tenements are for mill workers and 2,972 tenements are by way of transit accommodation. Out of these 6,802 tenements, a draw for allotment of 2,634 tenements was conducted on 9th May 2016. It is stated that in case of six more lands, on 17th March 2015, a permission has been granted to construct all 662 tenements out of which 444 will be for mill workers. Figures of the tenements which can be constructed on the lands, which are not put in possession by MHADA have also been set out in the said compilation marked at A- 2. Various particulars of the lands of 58 mills are made a part of the

¶22

3 / 8

¶23

Sharayu .

¶24

22-PIL-115-12.doc

¶25

chart.

¶26

The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that while conducting draw in relation to tenements constructed on a land of particular mill, the mill workers of other mills are also permitted to participate. The learned Counsel appearing for MHADA on instructions states that this submission is incorrect and in such a draw, only the mill workers of the concerned mills are permitted to participate. The second contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner is that there is no proper criteria fixed for allotment of the tenements.

¶27

Our attention is invited to Regulation 58 of the Development Control Regulations. We find that the criteria for allotment of tenements for mill workers is a part of Regulation 58.

¶28

Thirdly, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that certain ineligible mill workers have been made allotments in the draw already held. We have noted that the first draw was conducted way back on 28th June 2012. Learned Counsel appearing for the MHADA states that the result of draw held on 9th May 2016 has been also published. If the Petitioner has any specific grievance about allotment made to ineligible workers, the said

¶29

Sharayu . 4 / 8

¶30

22-PIL-115-12.doc

¶31

grievance has to be specifically addressed to the appropriate authority. On the basis of vague averments made in the Petition, the said grievance cannot be entertained.

¶32

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the draw conducted on 9th May 2016 is in respect of the tenements which are not yet constructed. The note tendered today by learned Counsel appearing for MHADA contains a statement that on six mills lands, construction of 2,634 tenements is in progress, which is likely to be completed in March 2017 and the draw conducted on 9th May 2016 is in relation to the said 2,634 tenements which are under construction. In case of remaining tenements out of 6,802 tenements which are proposed to be constructed on 8 lands, no draw has been get conducted.

¶33

Our attention is invited to Clause 9 of Regulation 58. Under Clause 9 (a), it is provided that the State Government shall appoint a Monitoring Committee under the Chairmanship of a retired Judge of this Court. The Committee will have one representative each of the textile mill owners and recognized trade union of mill workers, the Commissioner and the Government as members. Learned AGP on instructions states that such Monitoring Committee has been

¶34

5 / 8

¶35

Sharayu .

¶36

22-PIL-115-12.doc

¶37

constituted and is functioning. We accept the said statement. The functions of the Monitoring Committee have been set out in subclause (c) of Clause 9. Sub-Clause (c) read thus :-

¶38

“(c) Without prejudice to the generality of the functions

¶39

provided for in clause (a) of this sub-Regulation, the Monitoring Committee shall :

¶40

(i) lay down guidelines for the transparent

¶41

disposal by sale or otherwise of built up space, open lands and balance FSI by the cotton textile mills;

¶42

(ii) lay down guidelines for the opening, operation and closure of escrow accounts :

¶43

(iii) approve proposals for the withdrawal and application of funds from the escrow accounts:

¶44

(iv) monitor the implementation of the provisions of this Regulation as regards housing, alternative employment and related training of cotton textile mill workers.”

¶45

Under clause 9, the Monitoring Committee has been given powers of the Civil Court as far as issuing and enforcing notices

¶46

6 / 8

¶47

Sharayu .

¶48

22-PIL-115-12.doc

¶49

for attendance of the persons is concerned. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner has approached the Monitoring Committee. We find from sub-Clause (c) of Clause 9 that the Monitoring Committee has a power to monitor the implementation of provisions of Regulation 58 as regards housing of the mill workers of cotton textile mills. In fact sub-Clause (e) of Clause 9 lays down that every direction and decision of the Monitoring Committee shall be final and conclusive and binding on all concerned.

¶50

Now all the data as regards development carried out in accordance with Regulation 58 has been placed on record by MHADA in the form of compilation marked A-2. Therefore, the remedy of the Petitioner is now to make appropriate representation before the Monitoring Committee constituted in accordance with Clause 9 of Regulation 58.

¶51

11. We are sure that if a representation/complaint is made by the Petitioner to the Monitoring Committee, the same shall be entertained and disposed of expeditiously, if necessary, by issuing appropriate directions as contemplated by sub-Clause (c) of Clause 9 of Regulation 58.

¶52

7 / 8

¶53

Sharayu .

¶54

22-PIL-115-12.doc

¶55

As regards the grievance relating to alleged allotment made to ineligible mill workers, along with the representation made by the Petitioner, necessary details will have to be submitted to the Monitoring Committee by the Petitioner.

¶56

If an appropriate representation is made by the Petitioner to the Monitoring Committee containing all details within a period of six weeks from today, we request the Monitoring Committee to decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such a representation either by taking appropriate decision and/or by issuing a direction in terms of subClause (c) of Clause 9 of Regulation 58. Needless to add that Monitoring Committee will give an opportunity of being heard to all affected parties.

¶57

Subject to the above direction, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

¶58

All pending Notices of Motion and Chamber Summons stand disposed of.

¶59

8 / 8

¶60

Sharayu .

Girni Kamgar Karmachari Niwara and Kalyankari Sangh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girni Kamgar Karmachari Niwara and Kalyankari Sangh v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Vickram Crishna Vs State of Maharashtra

Arul Mozhi Selvan Vs Reserve Bank of India

G. Ramesh Thangam Vs Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Dinesh Jajodia Vs Citi Bank AND4 Ors.

Capt.Haresh Gaglani(Retd) Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Girni Kamgar Karmachari Niwara and Kalyankari Sangh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.