This is a short order dealing with a civil application for impleadment in a writ petition. The High Court found the applicant had an interest in the subject tenement and allowed him to be impleaded as a respondent.
The applicant was allowed to be impleaded as a party respondent in the writ petition.
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.
(6)-CAW-186-16.doc .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.186 OF 2016 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.10916 OF 2015
Mr. Ahmed Iddin Kunji ..Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Mr. Vinodkumar Gangaram Kuril ..Petitioner Versus The Assistant Commissioner, The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others ..Respondents
Mr. Sandesh Deshpande for the Applicant. Mr. M. B. Jadhav for the original Petitioner.
Mr. Susmit Phatale i/by Mr. Y. M. Chaudhari for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. Mr. Bhupendra Singh for the Respondent No.5. Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondent No.6.
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2017
P.C.
1 The above Civil Application has been filed by the Applicant seeking his impleadment in the above Writ Petition. The above Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the Respondent No.1 i.e. Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (For short “MCGM”) and the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the Additional Collector and Appellate Authority,
1 of 4
BGP.
(6)-CAW-186-16.doc .
Mumbai City. By the said order, the Appellate Authority refused to entertain the Appeal filed by the Petitioner.
2 The cause for exercising powers by the Competent Authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner, MCGM was the fact that the tenement in question being No.210, 2nd floor, Shree Sidhivinayak SRA Housing Society Ltd., Shivshankar Nagar, Dharavi, Mumbai-400 017, was though allotted to the Petitioner herein was being occupied by some third person. There is correspondence on record i.e. letter of the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies (SRA) dated 23.01.2010, in which letter it has been mentioned that two tenements in the scheme in question have been shown for being allotted to the PAPs. The Chairman and Secretary of the society was directed to inform the SRA about which are those two premises which are earmarked for PAPs in the rehab building. It seems that Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies (SRA) had also addressed a similar letter dated 22.09.2011 to the Executive Engineer, SRA, Mumbai. In the said letter, it has been mentioned that the tenement which was allotted to the Applicant Mr. Ahmed Iddin Kunji in the Shree Sidhivinayak SRA, Dharavi, Mumbai has been sold by the developer as informed by the society. The Assistant Registrar has therefore issued a direction that the action be taken against the developer. It seems that an order came to be passed by the Assistant Commissioner, MCGM for
2 of 4
BGP.
(6)-CAW-186-16.doc .
getting the premises vacated from the occupant thereof. The said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner came to be challenged by way of an Appeal before the Additional Collector and before the Additional Collector minutes of order came to be filed, whereby the Respondent No.5 developer has agreed to submit to the BMC/SRA the amended plan showing Room No.210 as commercial premises which is to be provided against the revised Annexure-III, Sr. No.78 to the original Petitioner. Hence, in so far as the original Petitioner in concerned, an agreement was reached between the original Petitioner and the Respondent No.5 developer. In view of the fact that the compliance of the directions were not made in the matter of evicting the occupant who was in occupation of the said tenement No.210 a notice came to be issued by the Assistant Commissioner on 15.09.2015 calling upon the original Petitioner to vacate and hand over the premises in question. The said notice was challenged by the Petitioner before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector as indicated above, by the impugned order dated 19.10.2015 has dismissed the Appeal on the ground that in the earlier Appeal, Minutes of Order were filed, which has given cause for filing of the above Petition.
3 In my view, the Applicant herein can be said to have some interest in the tenement No.210 as is evident from the correspondence on
3 of 4
BGP.
(6)-CAW-186-16.doc .
record. The Applicant obviously cannot ask for any reliefs in the above Petition, but obviously can assist this Court in the adjudication of the above Writ Petition, especially having regard to the fact that the orders are founded on the fact that the tenement in question being No.210 was earmarked for a PAP and the name of the Applicant appears in the said correspondence in respect of the said tenement. The Civil Application is accordingly allowed. The Applicant is accordingly allowed to be impleaded as party Respondent to the above Writ Petition. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from date. List the Petition for admission after a further period of two weeks. Affidavit in reply of Respondent No.5 to be filed two days prior to the next date. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
4 of 4
BGP.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant should be impleaded as a party in the underlying writ petition regarding allotment of a tenement.
Whether the applicant has a sufficient interest in the tenement to be joined as a respondent.
Mr. Ahmed Iddin Kunji
Mr. Vinodkumar Gangaram Kuril
The Assistant Commissioner, The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others
R. M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
