Bombay High Court
Sonali Ashok Tandle vs Ranka Lifestyle Ventures on 10 April, 2023
Bench: G.S.Kulkarni, Abhay Ahuja
1 6 wpl 39511-22-os.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.39511 OF 2022
Sonali Ashok Tandle ... Petitioner
V/s.
Ranka Lifestyle Ventures and ors. ... Respondents
---
Mr.Prathamesh Bhargude with Mr.Sumit Sonare and Mr.Sharad Dhore,
Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr.Rajesh Kachare with Mr.Abhinav Bhatkar i/by Mr.Ajay S. Patil,
Advocates for Respondent No.1.
Mr.P.G.Lad with Ms.Sayali Apte and Ms.Shreya Shah, Advocates for
Respondents No.3 to 5.
Mr.Suresh Pakale with Mr.Kunal Waghmare i/by Mr.Sunil K. Sonawane,
Advocates for Respondents No.6 to 8/MCGM.
Mr.S.K.Dhekale, Court Receiver, High Court present.
---
CORAM : G.S.KULKARNI AND
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 10 APRIL 2023.
P.C.:-
1. On 8th March, 2023, we had passed a detailed order recording the
case of the Petitioner and that of the official Respondents, more
particularly the MHADA. The case of the Petitioner was of patent
discrimination in allotment of permanent alternate premises. The
Petitioner had shown that tenements of larger area were allotted to the co-
tenants and agreements were entered with them by respondent No.1,
when the tenancies were similar to that of the Petitioner. Accordingly, we
had passed the following operative order, which included issuance of
show cause notices to Respondent No.1, Respondents No.3 to 5 and also
Priya Soparkar
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2023 01:33:33 :::
2 6 wpl 39511-22-os.doc
to Respondents No.6 to 8 as to why action be not taken for these
Respondents having breached the earlier order passed on 10 th January,
2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court.:-
: ORDER:
i) Occupation Certificate granted by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in respect of free sell building Kant Mansion, cadastral Survey No. 7/76 at Dadar Naigaon Division, bearing No. CHE/CTY/1385/F/S/337 (new)/OCC/1/new) dated 26 December 2022, shall remain th stayed till the adjourned date.
ii) The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay is appointed in respect of the unsold free sale flats in the Rehab building as also in the free-sell building as constructed by Respondent no.1 who shall take immediate steps to hold a meeting on the site and seal such unsold flats, on notice being issued to Respondent no. 1, and make a report to this Court.
iii) Respondent no. 1 as also respondent nos. 3 to 5 and respondent no. 6 to 8 are directed to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for non-compliance of the order dated 10.1.2020, passed by this Court.
iv) Reply affidavits on the show cause be placed on record within two weeks from today.
v) Respondent No.1 is also directed to file affidavit of disclosure with details thereof, as to how many flats have remained unsold in the rehab building as also the free sell building as also in regard to the movable and immovable aspects, bank details and I.T. Returns ( to be furnished in a sealed envelope) within two weeks from today.
vi) Respondent no. 1 is directed not to create third party interest whatsoever manner in respect of unsold flats in both the buildings.
vii) The Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai is permitted to take police assistance from the concerned local police station, in acting under the present order.
viii) At this stage, Mr. Lad, the learned Counsel submits that the Chief Officer of MHADA, be permitted to re-consider the Priya Soparkar ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2023 01:33:33 ::: 3 6 wpl 39511-22-os.doc impugned order. We shall consider such plea on the adjourned date of hearing as we reserve to pass order appropriate orders on issues as noticed by us and other non-compliance of the orders of this Court."
2. Mr. Nilesh Suryawanshi who has described himself as the Residential Executive Engineer of the M.B.R & R. Board has filed an affidavit. Such affidavit appears to be filed on personal information and not from the records of the MHADA. It is surprising as to how an Officer who is in Government service can place on record such an affidavit in such a serious matter, with a show cause notice has already been issued on breach of the orders passed by this Court. The approach of such Officer appears to be too casual to say the least. This apart, quite surprisingly, the contents of the said affidavit do not deal with the main issue of arbitrary allotment of tenement of larger area to the other persons/tenants on which this Court had devoted substantial reasoning in its order dated 8th March, 2023. Further some of the paragraphs of the affidavit are really astonishing, as they do not address what the Court had observed in paragraph No.7 of its order dated 8 th March, 2023. Secondly, the entire tenor of the affidavit prime facie appears to be to conceal information and /or the reluctance of the deponent to place on record the correct facts. One of the instances is what has been said in paragraph No.12 of the said affidavit. It is also quite painful to note is that the fairness with which an Officer of the rank of the Executive Engineer is Priya Soparkar ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2023 01:33:33 ::: 4 6 wpl 39511-22-os.doc expected to show is not all seen in the said deponent not disclosing all information in regard to the nature of allotment made by Respondent No.1, which according to the Petitioner is patently discriminatory as different areas are allotted to similarly placed tenants. This ought to have been the main focus of the affidavit, however there does not appear to be a slightest attempt to even touch such issue. We also wonder as to why the deponent has not examined the issues as to who were the tenants who were eligible, and what was the area which was offered to them, on what consideration, whether the same parameters have been applied in the allotment of permanent alternate accommodation and the basis of such allotment. This was the basic inquiry which was expected from the deponent, however, despite our order which is replete with our concerns and observations on discrimination being pleaded by the Petitioner, the approach of the deponent raises serious doubt on the understanding of the deponent of the issues, unless it is meant to be so.
3. In these circumstances, we may observe that we are not at all satisfied with the explanation of the deponents to the show cause as ordered by us. We are certain that we need to issue a show cause notice to Mr. Nilesh Suryawanshi, Residential Executive Engineer of the M.B.R & R. Board as to why he should not be punished for having committed contempt of not only the order passed by this Court on 10 th January, 2023, Priya Soparkar ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2023 01:33:33 ::: 5 6 wpl 39511-22-os.doc but also, of the subsequent order dated 8 th March, 2023, in filing an affidavit dated 28th March, 2023 which prima facie amounts to misleading this Court.
4. Let a notice be issued within one week from today. Reply to the notice be placed on record within two weeks thereafter.
5. In so far as Respondent No.1 is concerned, Mr.Bhavesh Jain, sole proprietor for Respondent No.1 has placed on record an affidavit dated 24th March, 2023. We have perused the said affidavit. The affidavit is not different from what we have commented on the affidavit filed by Mr.Nilesh Suryawanshi. This affidavit also does not in any manner deal with the disclosure as we had expected and ordered by our order dated 8th March, 2023. We are not satisfied that the affidavit is any explanation to the show cause notice as issued to him by our previous order.
6. Mr.Kachare, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 states that the affidavit does not contain the list of all the existing tenants, the area allotted to them and the reason why they were allotted higher areas than what was permitted to be allotted once such averments are not found in the affidavit, there is certainly non-compliance of the order dated 8th March, 2023. It may also be observed that only when we passed Priya Soparkar ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2023 01:33:33 ::: 6 6 wpl 39511-22-os.doc directions of the nature as contained in the order dated 8 th March, 2023, did Respondent No.1 came before the Court. Earlier a detailed affidavit of service was placed on record. Despite which Respondent No.1 had shown clear reluctance to come before the Court. Considering the affidavit filed by Mr.Bhavesh Jain, different treatment cannot be meted out to him. We are of the clear opinion that the affidavit is certainly not an affidavit disclosing particulars which ought to have been disclosed to the Court. There is an intention to mislead this Court by such affidavit, as also conceal the information. This apart there is no explanation is being offered to the non compliance of the directions of the coordinate Bench of this Court as contained in the order dated 10 th January, 2023. Mr. Bhavesh Jain would also be required to be heard on a show cause notice which be issued by the office as to why an order be not passed against him for disobeying the order dated 10th January, 2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and further in filing an affidavit to mislead this Court by affidavit dated 24th March, 2023, amounting to contempt of Court. Let a show cause notice be issued by office within one week from today.
7. At this stage, Mr.Lad, learned counsel for MHADA would tender his unconditional apology for the affidavit filed by Mr.Nilesh Suryawanshi. He would submit that an affidavit would be filed on behalf of MHADA and more particularly in the context of the order passed by us in the Priya Soparkar ::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2023 01:33:33 ::: 7 6 wpl 39511-22-os.doc order dated 8th March, 2023. Only as a mitigating factor, we permit the MHADA to do so. MHADA shall be heard on the adjourned date of hearing on such issue.
8. List the proceedings on 2nd May, 2023 for hearing on the show cause notice. (HOB)
9. Till the adjourned date of hearing, ad-interim order passed by us shall continue to operate.
10. At this stage, Mr. Kachare submits that a list of unsold flats is being handed over to the Court in a sealed envelope. The financial statements of Respondent No.1 in compliance of the order are handed over in a sealed cover to the learned Associate. The learned Associate shall produce the same before the Court on the adjourned date of hearing.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (G.S.KULKARNI, J.)
Priya Soparkar
::: Uploaded on - 13/04/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 14/04/2023 01:33:33 :::