Dismissed

Mahesh Vasant Patil v. Maharshtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2019WP/2518/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a communication declaring him ineligible for an MHADA residential unit allotment due to doubts about his wife's employment income. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the authorities' factual conclusions regarding the genuineness of documents were supportable and did not warrant writ intervention under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's petition was dismissed with time for submitting re-verification extended by one week.

Mahesh Vasant Patil Vs Maharshtra Housing and Area… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

2518-18-WP-15=.doc

¶2

Uday S. Jagtap

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2518 OF 2018

¶5

Mahesh Vasant Patil .. Petitioner v/s. MHADA & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

Mr. H.S. Venegavkar a/w Mr. Vinit Vaidya I/b Mr. Tejas Dhotre for the petitioner

¶7

Mr. Prabhakar Jadhav a/w Ms. Priyanka Ved I/b V.P. Sawant for respondent nos. 1 to 4

¶8

Mr. Mahesh V. Patil, petitioner present in Court

¶9

CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.J.

¶10

DATED : 17^th JULY, 2019

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Time for submitting re-verification in terms of our order dated

¶13

3^rd July, 2019 is extended by one week.

¶14

The petitioner has challenged a communication dated 1^st July, 2017 issued by MHADA conveying that the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of the residential unit in MHADA Scheme for which he had applied.

¶15

The facts on record which suggest that the petitioner is the employee of CBI. He had applied for allotment of flat in the year 2006 to MHADA. This was on the basis of his income received from his

1 of 3

2518-18-WP-15=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

employer as well as the additional income of Rs.7,000/- per month of his wife which he claimed that his wife was receiving from her employer namely one Hemraj Gangji & Co. dealing in the wholesale business of edible oil. At one stage, the MHADA Authorities considered the petitioner eligible, later on however, on complaints being made raising doubt about the wife’s earning, further investigation was carried out. As a culmination of such investigation, the impugned communication came to be issued.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner produced a certificate of the ex-employer of his wife clearly certifying that in the year 2005-06 she was employed on a monthly salary of Rs.7,000/-. He had produced additional materials to establish the fact that MHADA Authorities have incorrectly discarded such material and held the petitioner ineligible.

¶21

On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the MHADA submitted that full inquiries were made. The Certificate was found to be not genuine. The petitioner had produced the said certificate only in order to show higher family income. There were materials suggesting that said Hemraj Gangji & Co. was not regularly engaged in the business as claimed.

2 of 3

2518-18-WP-15=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we find that the conclusions arrived at by MHADA Authorities are purely factual in nature. The conclusions are based on attendant materials and documents. It was pointed out that M/s. Hemraj Gangji & Co. was not registered under the Professional Tax Act during the year 2005-06. Even after the period as late as in the year 2016, NIL return was filed since income was inadequate. The employer had not maintained the register of the employees. It is on the basis of such circumstances, that the MHADA Authorities came to the conclusion that the certificate of income of the wife of the petitioner was incorrect one, and obtained only to increase the family income which would qualify the petitioner to apply for allotment of larger unit. We do not find any error in the view of the respondents which can be corrected in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed.

¶27

(S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.) (AKIL KURESHI, J.)

¶28

3 of 3

Mahesh Vasant Patil v. Maharshtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Vasant Patil v. Maharshtra Housing and Area Development Authority and 4 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

Veerapandian Chinnaswamy Vs Vice President and Chief Executive Officer and 2 Ors.

Harjeet Surajprakash Girotra Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Cello Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India and 4 Ors.

Mr. Pranav Sudhir Chandrachood Vs Ms. Samradnyee Pranav Chandrachood

Kum. Mayur Samir Verma , through Natural Guardian Father Shri. Samir Verma Vs Maharashtra State Eletricity Distribution Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Smt. Lata Pravin Suryawanshi and Ors. Vs Chief Officer, Pune Griha Nirman and Kshetra Vikas Mandal and Anr.