Disposed¶7

Chitra Maruti Shelar v. the Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2025WP/1817/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

abuse of process; sheer abuse of process; writ petition withdrawn unconditionally; leave to withdraw granted; Project Affected Person PAP allotment; 80% of SDRR rate; Rs.50,52,750/- condition amount; Resolution No. 1423 of 2003 dated 10th December 2003; BMC/MCGM allotment revocation sought; Tata Memorial Centre/Hospital vicinity; Ghatkopar free accommodation; review rejected; Deputy Municipal Commissioner; Interim Application No. 3665 of 2024 disposed; Bombay High Court OOCJ; A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata JJ.; 21st January 2025.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw Writ Petition No. 1817 of 2024 unconditionally was granted; the Writ Petition was disposed of as withdrawn, and Interim Application No. 3665 of 2024 was disposed of as not surviving. No substantive relief granted on the merits. ¶7

Chitra Maruti Shelar vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner was entitled to revocation of the conditional allotment (condition to pay Rs.50,52,750/-, i.e. 80% of SDRR rate) and to pay amounts instead as per Resolution No. 1423 dated 10th December 2003. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

The Court expressed its disinclination to grant the Petitioner the relief as claimed (revocation of the allotment and payment per Resolution No. 1423 dated 10th December 2003).

¶5

Ratio / Principle

On the learned Advocate for the Petitioner seeking leave, on instructions, to withdraw the Petition unconditionally, leave was granted.

¶6

Key takeaways

This Court observed that the present Petition is a classic example of the phrase “sheer abuse of process”, and that the latitude given to the Petitioner, purportedly a hapless woman, fueled her insatiable desires leading to multiple proceedings.obiter¶1
The Writ Petition was disposed off as withdrawn.ratio¶7
In view of the disposal of the Petition, Interim Application No. 3665 of 2024 did not survive and was disposed off accordingly.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), W.P. No. 1817 of 2024 c/w I.A. No. 3665 of 2024 — Chitra Maruti Shelar v. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.; Coram: A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata, JJ.; decided 21st January 2025. The Petitioner, a Project Affected Person (handicapped, cancer patient), had in 2014 obtained disposal of W.P. No. 744 of 2014 with a premises earmarked on payment of 80% of SDRR rate of PAP tenement (Rs.50,52,750/-). Her request for a free tenement under Resolution No. 1423 of 2003 and her review having been declined/rejected by the BMC, she filed the present Petition six years later seeking revocation of the allotment and payment per Resolution No. 1423 dated 10th December 2003. The Court termed the Petition a classic example of “sheer abuse of process” and expressed disinclination to grant relief; on instructions the Advocate sought unconditional withdrawal, leave was granted, the Writ Petition was disposed of as withdrawn, and the Interim Application was disposed of as not surviving. The abuse-of-process observation is obiter — no adjudication on merits.

¶1

JPP 36. WP 1817.24.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1817 OF 2024 with

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3665 OF 2024

¶5

Chitra Maruti Shelar … Petitioner/Applicant

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

Mr. Vishal Patil for the Petitioner/Applicant

¶10

Mr. Bhavik Manek with Ms. R.M. Hajare i/b. Ms. Meena Dhuri for Respondent – BMC

¶11

Mr. Chandanshive, SE (F/S Ward) Officer present

¶12

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE : 21^st January 2025.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

In our view the present Petition is a classic example of the phrase

¶15

“sheer abuse of process”. The latitude given to the Petitioner by our Court, purportedly a hapless woman, has only fueled her insatiable desires leading to multiple proceedings.

¶16

Record indicates that the Petitioner, a Project Affected Person (PAP), approached this Court in 2014 seeking accommodation near the Tata Memorial Centre, Tata Memorial Hospital, instead of the free

¶17

1/3

¶18

JPP 36. WP 1817.24.doc

¶19

accommodation offered at Ghatkopar, being handicapped and a cancer patient. Being empathetic towards the Petitioner, this Court directed the BMC to check if it was possible for them to allot a premises in the vicinity as desired by the Petitioner. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner earmarked and offered a premises on the condition that she paid amount 80% of SDRR rate of PAP tenement as per the policy. The Petitioner accepted the condition and accordingly the Writ Petition bearing No. 744 of 2014 was disposed off in these terms.

¶20

The Petitioner then made another representation to the BMC that she is unable to pay the condition amount and the tenement should be given free of cost as per Resolution No. 1423 of 2003. That request was declined by the BMC stating that it was not applicable to the Petitioner’s case as the rates mentioned were for additional space and not the entire premises. The Petitioner then filed a review. That too was rejected. The Petitioner now claims that the BMC played foul by offering the allotment letter and suppressed the amount payable to accept the tenement.

¶21

By this Petition, filed six years later, she seeks revocation of the allotment with condition to pay the amount of Rs.50,52,750/- and permit her to pay amounts as per the Resolution No. 1423 dated 10^th December 2003.

¶22