Bombay High Court
Vilas Parbat Chavan And 8 Others vs Niraj Mansukhlal Ved And 5 Others on 24 September, 2018
Author: G.S. Kulkarni
Bench: Naresh H. Patil, G.S. Kulkarni
1 31-wpl 2937-18.doc
psv
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L.) NO.2937 OF 2018
Mr.Vilas Parbat Chavan & Ors. ...Petitioners
Vs.
Mr.Niraj Mansukhlal Ved & Ors. ...Respondents
-----
Mr.K.K. Malpathak i/b. Mr.Ghanshyam Sakpal for Petitioners.
Ms.Sheetal Metakari for MCGM.
Ms.Uma PalsuleDesai, AGP.
Mr.Shlok Parikh with Mr.Manish Doshi i/b. Vimadala & Co. for
Respondent No.1.
-----
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, ACTING C.J. AND
G.S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER 2018 P.C.:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioners claim to be the bonafide purchasers of the respective flats from respondent No.1 Mr.Niraj Ved, Proprietor of M/s.Shreenath Corporation, for valuable consideration. These flats are located in a SRA, redevelopment project undertaken by respondent No.1 for respondent No.2 Kapil Kunj Co-op. Housing Society. ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 01:04:11 :::
2 31-wpl 2937-18.doc
3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.1 has played fraud on the petitioners. The petitioners contend that after substantial delay, possession of the respective flats was handed over to the petitioners on 21st September 2017 but certain necessities/amenities are not provided by respondent No.1. Though undertaking dated 19 th December 2017 was given by respondent No.1 to complete amenities, however, the same is not undertaken. The petitioners thereafter have come to know about several other irregularities committed by respondent No.1 as set out in the petition.
4. We have perused the averments and the prayers in the petition. The petitioners have grievance against respondent No.1 and also certain inactions on the part of Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The petitioners have already approached the Grievance Committee of Slum Rehabilitation Authority by a complaint dated 23 rd August 2018 (Exhibit-Z, page 333 to 343 to the petition).
5. Considering the prayers as made in the petition and the nature of grievance, it may not be possible for this Court to grant reliefs as prayed by the petitioners. However, it would be open for the petitioners to pursue their complaint as made to the Grievance Committee of the SRA. If such complaint is filed and is on the record of ::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 01:04:11 ::: 3 31-wpl 2937-18.doc SRA, the same is required to be considered and decided by the Grievance Committee of the SRA. If not already decided, the Grievance Committee of the SRA shall decide the petitioner's complaint within 6 months from today.
6. All contentions of the parties on merits of the issues are kept open.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
G.S. KULKARNI, J. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
::: Uploaded on - 26/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/09/2018 01:04:11 :::