Disposed¶26

Onkarnath Lalchandji Karva v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2025PIL/66/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC, OOCJ, PIL No.66 of 2024 (neutral citation 2025:BHC-OS:10736-DB), decided 11 July 2025 by Alok Aradhe, CJ. & Sandeep V. Marne, J. (judgment per Marne J.). Keywords: MHADA allotment irregularities; Bandra Reclamation Building Nos.13 and 18; Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Regulations, 1981 amendments; transfer of tenements to ineligible persons; eligibility of 1980s allottees; Co-operative Society membership dispute; Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960; Registrar; non-joinder of alleged ineligible members; civil rights; laches/delay (W.P. No.2386 of 1991); Chamber Summons Nos.254 of 2017 and 372 of 2010; PIL disposed of without relief.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the PIL and Chamber Summons Nos.254 of 2017 and 372 of 2010 were disposed of. ¶26

Onkarnath Lalchandji Karva vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the PIL and Chamber Summons Nos.254 of 2017 and 372 of 2010 were disposed of.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether any relief can be granted in the PIL alleging irregularities in allotment of MHADA tenements at Bandra Reclamation (Building Nos.13 and 18) and challenging the amendments to the MHADA Regulations, 1981. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

No relief can be granted in the present Petition; the PIL is disposed of, and the Chamber Summons are disposed of as nothing survives in them.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

If the Petitioner is aggrieved by admission of any individual as member of a Co-operative Society, there is an adequate mechanism under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to challenge such admission before the jurisdictional Registrars.

¶24

Key takeaways

It is too late in the day to determine the eligibility of persons who were allotted tenements by MHADA in the 1980s.ratio¶25
This Court cannot decide the eligibility of members of a Society while deciding a Public Interest Litigation.ratio¶25
Persons alleged to be ineligible were not impleaded as party Respondents to the Petition, and no order can be passed behind their back which would affect their civil rights.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation (originally Writ Petition No.2386 of 1991, pending 34 years) alleging irregularities in allotment of MHADA tenements at Bandra Reclamation, Mumbai (Building Nos.13 and 18) and challenging amendments to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Regulations, 1981 as facilitating transfer of tenements to ineligible persons. Held: it is too late in the day to determine eligibility of allottees of the 1980s; eligibility of Society members cannot be decided in a PIL, especially when the alleged ineligible persons are not impleaded, as no order affecting their civil rights can be passed behind their back; grievances regarding admission of members of a Co-operative Society lie under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 before the jurisdictional Registrars. No relief granted; Petition disposed of and Chamber Summons Nos.254 of 2017 and 372 of 2010 disposed of, nothing surviving.

¶1

k 1/3 15 pil 66.24 db os.doc

¶2

2025:BHC-OS:10736-DB

¶3

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

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.66 OF 2024

¶5

Onkarnath Lalchandji Karwa ....Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents

¶6

WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.254 OF 2017 IN

¶7

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.66 OF 2024

¶8

Onkarnath Lalchandji Karwa ....Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Onkarnath Lalchandji Karwa ....Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents

¶9

WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.372 OF 2010 IN

¶10

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.66 OF 2024

¶11

Onkarnath Lalchandji Karwa ....Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents

¶12

Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar for the Petitioner/Applicant.

¶13

Ms. Uma Palsuledesai, AGP for Respondent No.1/State.

¶14

Ms. Aparna Kalathil with Ms. Sayli Apte I/b Mr. P.G. Lad for Respondent Nos.2 and 3/MHADA.

¶15

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 11 JULY 2025.

¶16

¶17

Page No. 1 of 3

¶18

k 2/3 15 pil 66.24 db os.doc

¶19

P.C. ( Per : Sandeep V. Marne, J. ):

¶20

Petitioner has filed the present Public Interest Litigation ( PIL ) alleging irregularities in the matter of allotment of tenements in buildings constructed by Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ( MHADA ) at Bandra Reclamation Mumbai, particularly Building Nos.13 and 18. The Petitioner has also raised grievance of original allottee freely selling the tenements to persons not belonging to the particular eligibility criteria. Petitioner has accordingly challenged amendments effected in the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Regulations, 1981 ( Regulation 1981 ) which does not ensure that the MHADA tenements get transferred only to the eligible persons in particular income group.

¶21

We have heard Mr. Sanglikar, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Ms. Palsuledesai, the learned AGP appearing for Respondent No.1/State and Ms. Kalathil, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 & 3-MHADA.

¶22

The present PIL was initially filed as Writ Petition No.2386 of 1991. The Petition is pending in this Court for the last 34 long years. Upon being inquired as to whether Petitioner is seeking cancellation of allotments made in favour of allottees at this distant point of time, Mr. Sanglikar has clarified that the object behind prosecuting the Petition is not to seek cancellation of such allotments made in 1980's. He would however submit that the amendment to the k Page No. 2 of 3

¶23

k 3/3 15 pil 66.24 db os.doc

¶24

Regulations need to be set aside as it has facilitated ineligible persons to become members of Societies, who are now controlling the Society’s Management. In our view, if Petitioner is aggrieved by admission of any individual as Member of Co-operative Society, there is adequate mechanism provided for under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 under which admission of any person as member of the Society can be challenged before the jurisdictional Registrars.

¶25

There is no denial to the fact that the concerned buildings have lived out of their age and are now due for redevelopment. It would be too late in a day to determine the eligibility of persons who were allotted tenements by MHADA in 1980's. Similarly, this Court cannot decide eligibility of members of Society while deciding a Public Interest Litigation. Persons who are alleged to be ineligible, are not impleaded as party Respondents to the present Petition. No order can be passed behind their back which will affect their civil rights.

¶26

5. In our view therefore, no relief can be granted in the present Petition. The same is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

In view of disposal of the Public Interest Litigation, nothing would survive in the Chamber Summons and the same are disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶29

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

Page No. 3 of 3

¶31

Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam k Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 14/07/2025 18:28:59

Onkarnath Lalchandji Karva v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Onkarnath Lalchandji Karva v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sagar Devre Son of Kantilal Devre vs the Union of India through the Secretary and 3 Ors.

Janahakka Sanrakshan Andolan through S.B. Gangurde and R.H. Sonawane and S.R. Gajghat vs State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Mahadev Patil vs the Chief Secretary State of Maharashtra Mantralay Thr. G.P. and Ors.

Firoj Rabbilal Jamadar vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Prin. Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Aparna Jatin Adhav vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mahadev Narsingh Ranware and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary and Ors.

Abhay Dattatray Gogate and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Government Pleader and Ors.

Mr. Sunil Modi Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Anannd Khosla Son of Pawan Khosla and Anr. vs Punam Kumari Singh

Anil Sakharam Naik vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Sagar Devre Son of Kantilal Devre vs the Union of India through the Secretary and 3 Ors.

Chandrakant v. Shah vs Axis Finance Limited and Ors.

Rushang Shah vs Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

Shahaji Nanai Thorat vs State of Maharashtra Returning Officer