Bombay High Court
Ansari Ziaul Haq Mahmood And 3 Ors vs Mohammed Hussein Ali Mohammed Umatia ... on 21 October, 2020
Bench: K.K. Tated, Milind N. Jadhav
OS IA 4699-20.doc
R.M. AMBERKAR
(Private Secretary)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 4699 OF 2020
(REVIEW / RECALL)
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8 OF 2020
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1529 OF 2019
Ansari Ziaul Haq Mahmood & Ors. .. Applicants /
Original Petitioners
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :
Mohammed Hussein Ali Mohammed Umatia & Ors. .. Petitioners
Vs
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
and Ors. .. Respondents
...................
Mr. Vivek Shukla i/by V. Shukla & Associates for the Applicants /
Petitioners
Mr. P.G. Lad a/w Ms. Aparna Kalathil for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
- MHADA
Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w Ms. Pallavi Thakur for
MCGM
Mr. G.S. Godbole a/w Ms. Rujuta Patil, Ms. Niyathi Katra and Ms.
Sonu Blasi i/by Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for Respondent
No. 6
...................
CORAM : K.K. TATED &
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 21, 2020.
(Through Video Conferencing)
P.C.:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Interim Application has been filed for review and recall of the order dated 18.8.2020 passed by this Court in Interim Application No. 8 of 2020 in Writ Petition No. 1529 of 2019.
1 of 4 OS IA 4699-20.doc Interim Application No. 8 of 2020 was filed by 100 petitioners. The present Application has been filed by 4 petitioners out of 100. Ground for review is that on the date when the order dated 18.8.2020 was passed, it is the contention of the petitioners that Respondent No. 3 i.e Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai had already taken the decision to handover the subject building to the developer but did not inform to the Court the said fact. Hence petitioners have moved for review / recall of the order and reiterated the demand for seeking direction to the developer i.e Respondent No. 6 to pay 12 months advance rent in respect of the transit accommodation.
3. We have perused the order dated 1.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 1531 of 2017, order dated 21.1.2020 passed in Contempt Petition No. 43 of 2019 and order dated 27.2.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 1529 of 2019 which are relied upon by the petitioners today. The said orders were also referred to and relied upon in Interim Application No. 8 of 2020. While passing the order dated 18.8.2020, we heard the petitioners and dealt with the grievances and gave our 2 of 4 OS IA 4699-20.doc findings in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order which reads thus:-
"5. We may state that the applicants have referred to several orders for seeking the relief claimed in the present application including the order dated 19.06.2020 which holds the field. If the said order is perused, the initial grievance of the applicants regarding receiving transit rent appears to have been resolved. Mr.Godbole has fairly submitted that between March and June-2020 there was some difficulty, but the same appears to have been resolved as recorded in the order. Without going into any further merits, we may state that once it has been ruled by the Court that the building / tenements belonging to the applicants was the subject matter of requisition for a temporary period for COVID-19 facility and MCGM is paying the monthly compensation payable to the tenants to the developer i.e. respondent No.6 and thereafter the disbursement of such compensation is taking place to the respective applicants, the relief claimed in the present application for seeking a lumpsum payment for 12 months, prima facie, appears to be unreasonable. Presently, none of the parties are able to assure as to for how much period the subject building will be requisitioned by MCGM for the purpose of Covid-19 facility.
6. In view of the above reasons, the relief claimed by the applicants seeking lumpsum transit rent for not less than 12 months from the developer i.e. respondent No.6 is rejected. Needless to say that the developer i.e. respondent No.6 will strictly adhere to the directions contained in the order dated 19.06.2020 and ensure that disbursement of actual monthly compensation payable to the applicants is done on time immediately on receipt of the compensation from MCGM without any default."
We may state that the present Interim Application for review / recall reiterates the same cause of action which has already been dealt with while disposing of Interim Application No. 8 of 2020. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved by any subsequent event, the petitioners can approach the 3 of 4 OS IA 4699-20.doc appropriate Court / forum / Authority in respect of the same by following the due process of law.
4. On due consideration of submissions advanced, we are of the view that no case is made out to entertain the application seeking review / recall of the order dated 18.8.2020 passed in Interim Application No. 8 of 2020. Neither the case of mistake apparent on the face of the record nor discovery of new evidence is made out by the Applicants / Petitioners so as to call for review / recall of the said order. The contentions raised by the Applicants are already dealt in detail in the order sought to be reviewed. In this view, we are not inclined to entertain the application. Accordingly, the interim application is rejected. No costs.
5. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned to act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ K.K. TATED, J. ]
Digitally signed
by Ravindra M.
Ravindra Amberkar
M. Date:
2020.10.21
Amberkar 14:08:11
+0530
4 of 4