Bombay High Court
Ansari Mohd Tahir Mohd Sadique And 12 Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors on 20 October, 2022
Author: R.D. Dhanuka
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka
4-WPL-6855-2022.doc
vai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
VASANT Digitally signed by
VASANT ANANDRAO
ANANDRAO IDHOL
Date: 2022.10.21
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 6855 OF 2022
IDHOL 19:29:25 +0530
Ansari Mohd Tahir Mohd Sadique & Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w. Mr. Jainish Jain for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.B. Gore, A.G.P., for the Respondent No. 1 - State.
Mr. Dharmesh Vyas a/w. Ms. Madhuri More i/b. Mr. S.K. Sonawane
for the Respondent No. 2 - MCGM.
Mr. Pratik Shah for the Respondent No. 3.
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
DATE : 20TH OCTOBER, 2022.
P.C. :-
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who claimed to be tenants of the Municipal Corporation, have prayed for a writ of mandamus against the respondent Corporation to follow the guidelines for redevelopment issued vide Circular dated 10th October, 2016 and prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the IOD dated 31st December, 2021 and the report dated 02nd February, 2021.
2. It is not in a dispute that the tenements occupied by the petitioners have already been vacated. The society i.e. New Mominpura Co-operative Housing Society (proposed) had appointed 1/4 4-WPL-6855-2022.doc for redevelopment to submit a re-proposal through its Architect M/s.
Shaikh and Associates. The Municipal Corporation considered the said request and granted the permission to carry out the redevelopment. In the said permission dated 02nd February, 2021, annexed at page 112 of the petition, it is clearly indicated that the developer appointed by the said society was i.e. M/s. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure . Since the petitioners have vehemently placed reliance on the order dated 03rd May, 2018 addressed to M/s. Grace and Rubberwala City Developers.
3. By a letter dated 21st June, 2018, the Executive Engineer (Estates) addressed to M/s. Rubberwala Housing and Infrastructure clarified that the termination notice dated 03 rd May, 2018 cannot be applicable of the project in the name of M/s. Rubberwala and Royal Developers. The society has already appointed the said M/s. Rubberwala Housing & Infrastructure for carrying out redevelopment.
4. This Court passed an order dated 09th March, 2022 in this petition after hearing the learned counsel for the parties.
5. This Court after recording the statements made by the petitioners and respondent No. 3 observed that the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 developer had pointed out that as per the Circular dated 17th November, 2020 of the respondent-Corporation, consent of 50% of the principal tenants was only required. This Court 2/4 4-WPL-6855-2022.doc also noticed the order dated 03rd September, 2019 and the order dated 24th May, 2021 in Writ Petition No. 895 of 2019. The learned counsel for the developer pointed out that out of the 246 tenements, 153 tenants have already vacated their respective premises and respondent No. 3 was paying them transit rent. This Court however, granted time to the Municipal Corporation and respondent No. 3 to file affidavit in reply. Both these parties have already filed their affidavit in reply. The order dated 09th March, 2022 was impugned by these petitioners before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 5215 of 2022. By an order dated 28th March, 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioners and observed that the proceedings initiated by the petitioners were objected in pursuance of the redevelopment plan and does not call for any objections by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. The grievance now made by the learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage is that the Municipal Corporation could not have pointed out the contractor who was already blacklisted or even their Sister Company. This Court had also noticed this statement in the order dated 09th March, 2022. Be that as it may, the said order of blacklisting was clarified by the Municipal Corporation by a communication dated 21st June, 2018.
3/4
4-WPL-6855-2022.doc
7. A perusal of the record indicates that the developer was appointed by the said society and not by the Municipal Corporation. In our view, this petition is an attempt to delay the redevelopment project by one or the other method. The conduct of the petitioners has already been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said order dated 28th March, 2022. If the redevelopment is carried out, the petitioners are entitled to alternate accommodation and thus the petitioners also would be benefited. Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out as to what prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if the project of redevelopment was carried out by the developer appointed by the society. The appointment of the developer by the society is not impugned by these petitioners in accordance with law except in this petition. In our view, the respondent No. 3 society has appointed the developer and not the Municipal Corporation and thus the order of blacklisting if any, would not come in the way of the appointment of the developer.
8. In our view, the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with costs of at Rs. 50,000/- which shall be paid by the petitioners to Maharashtra Legal Services Authority within one week from today.
9. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.)
4/4