Pushpa Sahablal Tiwari vs State of Maharashtra Th. Govt. Pleader, High Court Bombay

Mr. U. Tiwari h/f P. V. Dhopatkar for Petitioner. Mr. Suraj Gupte, AGP for State. Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 / SRA. Mr. Anil Rao for Respondent Nos.5 and 5A.

¶11

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 28 JANUARY 2026

¶12

P.C.

¶13

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed

¶15

praying for the limited reliefs:

¶16

"(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ Mandamus or any other Wirt, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus against the concerned Respondents to allot and to include the Petitioner in the process of allotment of requisite Flat in the building newly constructed in the S.R.A. Area of Krishnaraj (SRA) Co-operative Housing Society at CTS No. 125, 126, 127, 2/116(Part) & 116 (Part), Dr. E. Moses Marg, Worli Naka, Mumbai-400108 in place and stead of her eligible hutment 4 i.e. Room No.5 in Railway Dabawal Chawl at CTS No. 125, 126,, 127, 2/116(Part) & 116 (Part), Dr. E. Moses Marg, Worli Naka, Mumbai-400108;

¶17

(a1) That this Hon'ble Court shall be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus against the concerned authorities including the SRA and State of Maharashtra shall direct/order the Respondent No.1 to 4 to direct/order the Respondent No.5 & 5A to allot the flat as assured by them to the Petitioner in their Project at Worli or at Sath Rasta, Mumbai pursuant to letter dated 26.08.2010.

¶18

(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Prohibition or any other Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Prohibition restraining the concerned Respondents Authorities from allotting the flat of the Petitioner to any other persons instead of her in the newly constructed building of Krishnaraj

¶19

Page 1 of 2 28 January 2026

¶20

Kiran Kawre

¶21

39-WP-2099-2024 (OS).DOC

¶22

(SRA) Co-operative Housing Society at CTS No. 125, 126, 127, 2/116(Part) & 116 (Part), Dr. E. Moses Marg, Worli Naka, Mumbai-400108."

¶23

We note that a coordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 6 February 2025, recorded that the learned counsel for the petitioner had received a list of available tenements for Project Affected Persons from the learned advocate for respondent No.2 to 4 in Court on the said date, and accordingly, time was sought to take instructions.

¶24

Mr. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the SRA, on instructions, submits that the SRA is ready and willing to allot tenements to the petitioners, however, the petitioners are not coming forward to accept the tenements.

¶25

Thus, without delving on the merits of the rival contentions, we are of the opinion that as the tenements are being offered, it is open to the petitioners to accept the same within a period of ten days from today.

¶26

Let appropriate formality in that regard be completed by the Competent Officer of the SRA. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open. Except for what has been observed hereinabove, we are not delving on any other rival contentions of the parties. The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the aforesaid observations. No costs.

¶27

The petitioners shall approach the Office of the Estate Officer on Monday i.e. on 2 February 2026 at 3.00 p.m.

¶28

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

¶29

Page 2 of 2 28 January 2026

¶30

Kiran Kawre

Pushpa Sahablal Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra Th. Govt. Pleader, High Court Bombay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Sahablal Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra Th. Govt. Pleader, High Court Bombay

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

Sabre Travel Network (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance

M/S. Uma Exports Limited vs Union of India through the Joint Secretary and Ors.

Amit Manilal Haria and Ors. vs Joint Commissioner Cgst and Central Excise and Ors.

Goldie Sud vs Union of India

Nandkumar Pawar vs the Union of India

Milind Madukar Bhat vs Ceo, Mhada