Dismissed¶59

Mahesh Chandrakant Shetye v. The State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Jun 2026WP/2287/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MHADA; Mumbai Board Lottery Scheme 2023; Mumbai Board Lottery Scheme 2024; price parity between successive lotteries; discriminatory pricing; refund of excess consideration; Ready Reckoner Rate; 110% of Ready Reckoner Rate pricing formula; DCR 33(5); DCR 33(7); corrigendum price reduction 10%–25%; LIG; MIG; affordable housing; Building No.11, Swagruh CHS Ltd., Lokmanya Nagar, Dadar; allotment finality; no parity claim after full payment; writ petition dismissed; Bombay High Court OOCJ.

What did the court decide?

When Lottery–2023 was announced, the petitioners participated and paid the entire consideration for which the flats were allotted; it was for Lottery–2024 that MHADA chose to reduce the pricing. ¶53

Mahesh Chandrakant Shetye vs The State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners (Lottery–2023 allottees of identical flats in Building No.11, Swagruh CHS Ltd., Lokmanya Nagar, Dadar) can claim parity with Lottery–2024 allottees and obtain extension of the reduced prices / refund of the excess amounts paid, challenging MHADA's orders dated 11th November 2025. +2 more

¶37

Court's answer

When Lottery–2023 was announced, the petitioners participated and paid the entire consideration for which the flats were allotted; it was for Lottery–2024 that MHADA chose to reduce the pricing.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The petitioners cannot claim parity with the Lottery–2024 allottees: having paid the entire consideration on MHADA's representation without ever objecting to the Lottery–2023 pricing, and their allotment having attained finality, the reduced Lottery–2024 prices cannot afford a case to claim refund on the ground of parity.

¶57

Key takeaways

The plea of discrimination alleged by the petitioners is not well founded and without any substance; the Court finds no merit in the Petition.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (OOCJ), Writ Petition No.2287 of 2026 — oral order per M.S. Karnik, J. (bench with S.M. Modak, J.); Petition DISMISSED. Lottery–2023 allottees (LIG/MIG) of identical flats in Building No.11, Swagruh CHS Ltd., Lokmanya Nagar, Dadar, challenged MHADA's orders dated 11.11.2025 rejecting their representation for extension of the price reduction (about 10%–25%, per corrigendum dated 29.08.2024) granted to Mumbai Board Lottery Scheme 2024 allottees of the same building, and sought refund of the excess paid (counsel claimed MHADA charged Rs.1,62,92,437/- against Rs.1,29,71,484/- payable at 110% of Ready Reckoner Rate — excess Rs.33,20,953/-; the 110% formula under DCR 33(5)/33(7) was confirmed by MHADA resolution No.7035 dated 11.03.2022 and Government letter dated 22.02.2023 furnished in an RTI reply dated 02.03.2026). Held: the petitioners, having participated in Lottery–2023, paid the entire consideration and never objected to its pricing, cannot claim parity with Lottery–2024 allottees; their allotment has attained finality; the plea of discrimination is not well founded and without substance. No precedent cases cited.

¶1

902-WP-2287-2026.doc

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2287 OF 2026

¶4

Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SATISH SANGAR RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2026.06.16 17:40:24 +0530

¶5

Mahesh Chandrakant Shetye Age : 37 Years, Occupation : Self Employed, Residing at : 43/2145, Shantsadan, MHB Colony, Gandhi Nagar, Near Highway Gomantak Hotel, Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 and Others... ...Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032 and Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr.Kunal Bhanage a/w Mr.Akshay Pawar, Advocates for Petitioners. Mr.Milind More, Addl.G.P. for Respondent–State. Ms.Manisha Jagtap, Advocate for Respondents–MHADA.

¶10

¶11

ORAL ORDER : (PER : M.S.KARNIK, J.)

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶13

The present Petition challenges the orders dated 11^th November

¶14

2025 issued to the petitioners whereby the MHADA rejected the petitioners’ representation seeking extension of the benefit of price reduction granted under Mumbai Board Lottery Scheme 2024 to the

Satish Sangar

1/7

902-WP-2287-2026.doc

petitioners, though the petitioners are allottees of identical flats in the same building under Lottery 2023.

¶19

The facts are briefly stated thus:-

¶20

(a) In May–2023, MHADA published an advertisement for Mumbai Board Online Lottery Scheme July–2023, inviting applications for allotment of residential flats in various categories including LIG and MIG under Building No.11, Swagruh CHS Ltd., Lokmanya Nagar, Dadar, Mumbai.

¶21

(b) In August–2023, the lottery draw was conducted and the petitioners were declared successful allottees in respect of their respective flats in Building No.11, Wing–D. The provisional offer letter dated 4^th September 2023 came to be issued to the petitioner No.1 and similar allotment / offer letters were issued to the other petitioners for their respective flats.

¶22

(c) From May–2024, MHADA started handing over possession of the allotted flats to allottees who had paid full consideration. Only a few allottees took possession before August–2024, while the majority took possession thereafter.

¶23

(d) In August–2024, MHADA published an advertisement for Mumbai Board Lottery Scheme 2024 for surplus / balance flats in the same Building No.11. The prices quoted for identical flats were the same as in the Lottery–2023.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the file noting

¶25

dated 23^rd August 2024 obtained under the Right to Information Act

Satish Sangar

2/7

902-WP-2287-2026.doc

(“ RTI ”, for short) disclosed that MHADA itself acknowledged that the advertised prices were around 135% to 145% of Ready Reckoner Rate and considered factors such as 110% of Ready Reckoner Rate, service charges, property tax and location advantage while reworking prices for Lottery–2024. MHADA issued a corrigendum on 29^th August 2024 announcing price reduction of about 10% to 25% for flats offered in Lottery–2024, including identical flats in the same building.

¶30

On 2^nd September 2024, the petitioners made representation to MHADA seeking extension of the same price reduction benefit to Lottery–2023 allottees and refund of the excess amount paid. The petitioners submitted a further detailed / common representation reiterating the same grievance and seeking parity with Lottery–2024 allottees.

¶31

As MHADA failed to decide the representations, the petitioners filed the Writ Petition No.2708 of 2025 in this Court challenging the discriminatory pricing policy. This Court permitted withdrawal of the Writ Petition No.2708 of 2025 on 15^th September 2025 with liberty to to pursue the representation dated 26^th September 2024, and directed MHADA to decide the same as early as possible and in any event within a period of four weeks from the presentation of the order.

Satish Sangar

3/7

902-WP-2287-2026.doc

MHADA rejected the said representation vide order dated 11^th November 2025. A similarly situated allottee filed an RTI Application dated 5^th February 2026 seeking documents concerning the pricing policy, minutes of meetings and resolutions relating to DCR 33(5) and 33(7) tenements.

¶36

By the reply dated 2^nd March 2026, MHADA furnished reply to the RTI Application, enclosing resolution No.7035 dated 11^th March 2022 and Government letter dated 22^nd February 2023, confirming that pricing under DCR 33(5) and 33(7) was to be based on 110% of

¶37

the Ready Reckoner Rate. The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the orders dated 11^th November 2025 and seeking extension of reduced prices / refund of excess amounts.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners was at pains to point out that MHADA was not justified in treating the similarly situated allottees differently. It is submitted that the Lottery–2023 and Lottery–2024 allottees were allotted identical flats in the same building, obtained under the same DCR provisions, yet only the latter allottees were granted the benefit of reduced prices. It is submitted that the only distinction between the two sets of allottees is the timing of the lottery,

¶39

which has no rational nexus with the object of providing affordable

Satish Sangar

4/7

902-WP-2287-2026.doc

housing. Such a classification is ex-facie arbitrary and discriminatory. It is further submitted that once MHADA itself accepted that the advertised prices required reduction for Lottery–2024, it could not lawfully deny the same benefit to the petitioners who had already paid substantially higher amounts for the identical flats. It is submitted that MHADA has violated its own pricing policy.

¶44

According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the price at 110% of the Ready Reckoner Rate would be Rs.1,29,71,484/-, whereas MHADA actually charged Rs.1,62,92,437/- i.e. an excess of Rs.33,20,953/-. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the original advertised prices were approximately 135% to 145% of the Ready Reckoner Rate and later revised the same for Lottery– 2024. Learned counsel submitted that the MHADA therefore had adopted the pricing policy contrary to MHADA’s own stated formula.

¶45

It is further submitted that the impugned order is non-speaking order and passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. It is then submitted that the petitioners belong to Lower Income Group (“ LIG ”) and Middle Income Group (“ MIG ”) categories and most of them have purchased the subject flats by availing housing loans, arranging savings and mobilising financial assistance to secure residential

Satish Sangar

5/7

902-WP-2287-2026.doc

accommodation. The excess burden of about rupees 30 to 33 lakhs per

¶50

flat is enormous for lower income allottees and has long-term consequences on their repayment obligations, family finances and future financial stability. Learned counsel was at pains to point out that in affordable housing scheme, such a burden is wholly disproportionate and defeats the very purpose of the scheme.

¶51

It is further submitted that MHADA being a statutory authority established to provide affordable housing cannot maintain one price

¶52

for a set of allottees and a substantially lower price for another set of allottees of identical flats in the same building when the difference is attributable only to timing.

¶53

We have heard learned counsel for MHADA as well who defended the impugned action. We find that the Writ Petition is devoid of any substance. In our opinion, the petitioners cannot claim parity with the Lottery–2024 allottees. When the Lottery–2023 was announced, the petitioners participated and paid the entire consideration for which the flats were allotted. It is for the Lottery– 2024 that the MHADA chose to reduce the pricing. The petitioners never made an attempt to find out from the MHADA the Ready Reckoner Rates and having paid the entire consideration on the

Satish Sangar

6/7

902-WP-2287-2026.doc

representation made by MHADA cannot now claim parity with allottees of Lottery of 2024. The petitioners never objected to the pricing fixed for Lottery–2023. Now the petitioners cannot claim parity with allottees of Lottery–2024 only because the prices are reduced. So far as the petitioners are concerned, their allotment has attained finality. Reduced prices for Lottery of 2024 cannot afford a case to the Petitioners to claim refund on the ground of parity.

¶58

The plea of discrimination alleged by the petitioners is not well founded and without any substance. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this Petition.

¶59

The Petition is accordingly, dismissed.

¶60

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶61

Satish Sangar

¶62

7/7

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Orders dated 11th November 2025 issued by MHADA rejecting the petitioners' representation seeking extension of the price-reduction benefit granted under Mumbai Board Lottery Scheme 2024 and refund of excess amounts.¶35
MHADA · 11th November 2025
Prior proceeding
May–2023: MHADA published advertisement for Mumbai Board Online Lottery Scheme July–2023, inviting applications for residential flats (incl. LIG/MIG) in Building No.11, Swagruh CHS Ltd., Lokmanya Nagar, Dadar, Mumbai.¶20
Prior proceeding
August–2023: lottery draw conducted; petitioners declared successful allottees of their respective flats in Building No.11, Wing–D.¶21
Prior proceeding
Provisional offer letter dated 4th September 2023 issued to petitioner No.1; similar allotment/offer letters issued to the other petitioners.¶21
Prior proceeding
From May–2024, MHADA began handing over possession of allotted flats to allottees who had paid full consideration.¶22
Prior proceeding
August–2024: MHADA advertised Mumbai Board Lottery Scheme 2024 for surplus/balance flats in the same Building No.11, quoting the same prices as Lottery–2023.¶23
Prior proceeding
File noting dated 23rd August 2024 (obtained under RTI) disclosed MHADA's acknowledgement that advertised prices were around 135%–145% of Ready Reckoner Rate and the factors (110% RRR, service charges, property tax, location advantage) considered in reworking Lottery–2024 prices.¶29
Prior proceeding
Corrigendum dated 29th August 2024 announced price reduction of about 10%–25% for flats offered in Lottery–2024, including identical flats in the same building.¶29
Prior proceeding
On 2nd September 2024, petitioners represented to MHADA seeking extension of the Lottery–2024 price-reduction benefit to Lottery–2023 allottees and refund of the excess amount paid.¶30
Prior proceeding
Petitioners submitted a further detailed / common representation (dated 26th September 2024 per ¶31) reiterating the grievance and seeking parity with Lottery–2024 allottees.¶30
Prior proceeding
As MHADA failed to decide the representations, petitioners filed Writ Petition No.2708 of 2025 in this Court challenging the discriminatory pricing policy.¶31
Prior proceeding
This Court permitted withdrawal of Writ Petition No.2708 of 2025 on 15th September 2025 with liberty to pursue the representation dated 26th September 2024.¶31
Prior proceeding
This Court directed MHADA to decide the representation dated 26th September 2024 as early as possible and in any event within four weeks from presentation of the order.¶31
Prior proceeding
A similarly situated allottee filed RTI Application dated 5th February 2026 seeking documents concerning the pricing policy, minutes of meetings and resolutions relating to DCR 33(5) and 33(7) tenements.¶36
Prior proceeding
By reply dated 2nd March 2026, MHADA furnished the RTI reply enclosing resolution No.7035 dated 11th March 2022 and Government letter dated 22nd February 2023.¶37
Prior proceeding
The RTI documents (Government letter dated 22nd February 2023 and resolution No.7035 dated 11th March 2022) confirmed that pricing under DCR 33(5) and 33(7) was to be based on 110% of the Ready Reckoner Rate.¶37

Mahesh Chandrakant Shetye v. The State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Chandrakant Shetye v. The State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Haqiqullah Raunak Ali Khan and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary and Ors.

Madarsa Jamaeetul Madina Trust through Its Trustees vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Government Pleader

Madarsa Jamaeetul Madina Trust through Its Trustees vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Government Pleader

Vikas Prakashchand Jain vs the Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mahila and Ghar Suraksha Kalyankari Sanstha vs State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Imran Haji Mohd. Suleman Quereshi vs State of Maharashtra Th. the Principal Secretary