Dismissed

Vijay Nana Sawant v. Commissioner of Police and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC30 Mar 2017WP/178/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the allotment of a government residential quarter to a stenographer. The court held that under Rule 6(viii), allotment on medical grounds to non-police staff is permissible but dismissed the petitioner's claim as he was seeking a quarter smaller than his entitlement as a Havaldar.

What did the court decide?

The High Court did not interfere with the Tribunal's order dismissing the O.A. and discharged the rule.

Vijay Nana Sawant Vs Commissioner of Police… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2017)

WP.178/2017(8)

mnm

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 178 OF 2017

¶6

Shri Vijay Nana Sawant ...Petitioner Vs. Commissioner of Police for Greater Mumbai and Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Aditya Pratap, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A.L. Patki, Addl. G.P for the State Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 Mr. R.S. Khadapkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3

¶8

CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATED :30^TH MARCH, 2017

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

¶10

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent matter is taken up for final hearing.

¶11

2 Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned A.G.P for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3.

¶12

The Petitioner is working as Police Head Constable with the

¶13

Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai. The case of the Petitioner is

¶14

WP.178/2017(8)

¶15

¶16

that he had applied for police residential quarter in A/15, Shivshankar C.H.S. Ltd., Mulund (E), Mumbai. The said residential quarter was allotted to Respondent No.3 by order dated 1^st July, 2015. According to the Petitioner, allotment of the quarter to Respondent No.3 was illegal, hence, he preferred O.A. No.774 of 2015 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. The said O.A came to be dismissed by order dated 15^th June, 2016. Hence, this Petition.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as per rules, these quarters are meant to be allotted to the Police personnel from the rank of Constable to that of the Deputy Commissioner and above. In support thereof, he relied on Rule 3 framed by Respondent No.1 ie., The Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai for allotment of quarters at Mumbai. He submitted that nowhere it is mentioned that Government quarters under the control of the Respondent No.1 can be allotted to ministerial staff working in the Police Department. He pointed out that the Respondent No.3 is working as Stenographer and she is not a police personnel. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also pointed out the allotment letter dated 1^st July, 2015 wherein it is mentioned that Respondent No.3 is a Mantralaya employee.

¶18

WP.178/2017(8)

¶19

¶20

The Petitioner had given a representation on 15^th January, 2015 for allotment of quarter A/15 or A/29, Shivshankar C.H.S. Ltd., Mulund

¶21

(E) Mumbai. The Petitioner had earlier submitted two representations dated 11^th March, 2014 and 10^th October, 2014 for allotment of police residential quarter. By order dated 22^nd September, 2014 the Petitioner was allotted a quarter but he did not accept the same. Again by order dated 31^st March, 2015 the Petitioner was admittedly allotted residential quarter No.C-406, Himgiri Building, Mulund Police Quarters, Mulund (W). However, the said quarter was not occupied by the Petitioner and the Petitioner submitted a representation on 13^th April, 2015 for cancellation of the allotment. Thus the Petitioner did not accept the quarters allotted to him and instead on 21^st April, 2015 the Petitioner again submitted an application for allotment of flat A/15, Shivshankar C.H.S. Ltd., Mulund (E) which was vacant. However, the said quarter was allotted to Respondent No.3 who according to the Petitioner, was not entitled to the same.

¶22

As far as the contention of the Petitioner is concerned that

¶23

Respondent No.3 belongs to ministerial staff and was not a police personnel, it is seen that it is an admitted fact that she is working as

¶24

WP.178/2017(8)

¶25

¶26

Stenographer in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police Head Quarters-2. Thus there is no doubt that Respondent No.3 belong to the establishment of Respondent No.1 ie., Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. Rule 6 (viii) states as under:

¶27

“6. Criteria for allotment of Government quarters :

¶28

(viii) Allotment of service quarters as a special case: On medical grounds or under extraordinary conditions, 10 percent of the service quarters shall be allotted by the Committee with the approval of Hon'ble Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai” .

¶29

Respondent No.3 has been allotted quarter on medical ground, Thus under Rule 6(viii) of the Rules dated 1^st July, 2015, the Respondent No.1 Commissioner of Police can allot Police quarters on medical or humanitarian ground as a special case, to the staff working in his office, who may not be Police Personnel.

¶30

We would also like to point out that the Petitioner is a Police

¶31

Hawaldar, hence he is eligible to quarters which are of 351 to 450 sq. ft. in size. The quarters which are being sought by the Petitioner but have

¶32

WP.178/2017(8)

¶33

¶34

been allotted to Respondent No.3 is about 300 sq. ft. in size. Rule 6

¶35

(vii) states that Police officers/policemen must demand only those quarters to which they are entitled. Thus it is seen that the Petitioner was not entitled to the said quarter and as per Rule 3 of Rules dated 2^nd February, 2015 (called Allotment Rules) the Petitioner is entitled to a quarter having area of 351 to 450 sq. ft. As per Rule 6(vii), the request for a quarter smaller in area than the entitlement cannot be considered. Thus the Police Hawaldar would not be entitled to be allotted A/15 which is 300 sq. ft. and only Police Constable and Police Naik are eligible to get this quarter. The Petitioner being a Police Havaldar was not entitled to the said quarter.

¶36

9. Admittedly the Petitioner owns a house in Mulund (E) the carpet

¶37

area of which is 300 sq. ft. He was allotted quarters on two occasions ie., by order dated 22^nd September, 2014 and 31^st March, 2015. However, he did not accept the same and he is insisting for quarter A/15 to which he is not entitled. As stated earlier quarter A/15 could only be allotted to Police Naik or Police Constable and the Petitioner is of the rank of Police Havaldar, hence, he is not entitled to the said

¶38

quarter. The Petitioner cannot claim / insist on allotment of a particular

¶39

6 WP.178/2017(8)

¶40

quarter. He has no legal claim to be allotted quarter A/15. The Tribunal has considered all these aspects and in our opinion, rightly dismissed the O.A. We see no reason to interfere in the said order, hence Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

¶41

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

Vijay Nana Sawant v. Commissioner of Police and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Nana Sawant v. Commissioner of Police and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rama Balu Mase Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dada Alias Pravin Satish Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Arun Kumar Shrivastava Vs Union of India, through the Defence Secretary and Ors.

Madhavpura Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Limited through Liquidator of Mmcb Vs Bank of India 19 Ors.

Vithhal Shreeram Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tariq Abdul Karim Parveen @ Tariq Parveen Vs the State of Maharashtra