1 wp1401-11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1401 OF 2011 Tejas Santoshkumar Jaiswal .. Petitioner versus The Estate Manager (II) & Ors .. Respondents Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr.S.U.Dhakephalkar for the petitioner. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, G.P for respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 28th September 2011. P.C.: . This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order passed by the Estate Manager dated 17th July 2010 and the prayer in the petition is that this order should be set aside. 2 The petitioner Tejas Jaiswal, is the son of Santoshkumar Jaiswal and Meenakshi Santoshkumar Jaiswal. The said Meenakshi Jaiswal made an application being Application No.100222 on 30th June 2006 for residential accommodation under High Income Group in Housing Scheme at New Dindoshi under Code No.197 in the reserve category of 2 wp1401-11.doc journalist. 3 This application was made to the Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board. Thereafter, a lottery drawn was undertaken some time in July 2006, in which the said Meenakshi Jaiswal was declared successful. She thereafter submitted the requisite documents and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (for short “MHADA”) alloted her this flat. She paid full costs and the final allotment letter also came to be issued in her. 4 The said Meenakshi Jaiswal made an application that the flat be transferred to the name of her son Tejas Santoshkumar Jaiswal who is the petitioner before this Court. By letter dated 15th November 2007, the Estate Manager of the respondent No.2, informed the petitioner that Flat No.202 in Building No.19/A has been transferred in the name of the petitioner-Tejas Jaiswal. 5 It is not in dispute that father of the petitioner, Mr.Santoshkumar Jaiswal, made an application being Application No.471714 on 27th January 2009 for residential accommodation under High Income Group 3 wp1401-11.doc in Housing Scheme at Pratiksha Nagar, Sion under Code No.209, in S.G category. That application was considered in a lottery draw, wherein the father of the petitioner was successful and found eligible for allotment. He came to be alloted Flat No.401 in Building No.H/26-A at Pratiksha Nagar, Sion under Code No.209 as per the priority number. Subsequently, the allotment in favour of the father of the Pratiksha Nagar tenement was finalised. 6 The grievance of the petitioner-Tejas Jaiswal who is the son of Santoshkumar Jaiswal and Meenakshi Jaiswal is that a complaint came to be made in respect of the allotment to the father on the ground that the father made a false and misleading statement, viz, that he does not have any flat or tenement either in his own name or in the name of any of his family members and it is stated that once this affidavit was found to be misleading, eviction proceedings against the father in relation to the flat at Pratiksha Nagar came to be initiated and which resulted in the said allotment being cancelled. That is questioned in Writ Petition No. 1494 of 2011. 7 However, as far as the son-Tejas (petitioner) is concerned, he got 4 wp1401-11.doc show cause notice from the Estate Manager upon a complaint from one Suryakant Sopanrao Shinde that at the time of transfer of the flat, the petitioner had not completed 18 years of age. On receipt of this show cause notice, a reply came to be forwarded and he placed on record proof of age and relevant documents. Yet, on 17th July 2010, the order was made cancelling the transfer and therefore, the transfer in favour of the petitioner by his mother, came to be set aside. Aggrieved by this order the subject writ petition is filed. 8 Several contentions were raised but knowing the stand of the mother Meenakshi Jaiswal and father Santoshkumar Jaiswal in the companion Writ Petition that the son having completed more than 18 years of age, they do not mind the allotment of the tenement at Dindoshi being continued in his name, that I am of the opinion that any larger controversy need not be decided and gone into. Ultimately, the tenement was alloted under a lottery draw to the mother of the petitioner, viz., Meenakshi Jaiswal. She desired to gift and transfer it to her son and the argument is that the complaint against her family was with a view to obtain allotment of another tenement by the father Santoshkumar so also to overcome any hindrances therein, that this 5 wp1401-11.doc transfer was effected and, therefore, it is not valid in the eyes of law. However, since the father is giving up all his right, title and interest in the tenement at Pratiksha Nagar, Sion, I am of the view that in the peculiar facts of this case, the allotment in favour of Meenakshi Jaiswal and the subsequent transfer in favour of son Tejas Santoshkumar Jaiswal, need not be disturbed. In the larger interest of justice and finding that there is no error or illegality in the initial allotment, that the order of the Estate Manager dated 17th July 2010, Annexure N to the writ petition, is quashed and set aside. Similarly, the age of the petitioner is more than 18 years of age is apparent from the record. The tenement shall continue to be alloted to the mother Meenakshi Santoshkumar Jaiswal, but now it shall stand transferred in the name of the petitioner-Tejas Santoshkumar Jaiswal in the records of the Authority. All necessary corrections be carried out, if required and the allotment/transfer in favour of the petitioner-Tejas Jaiswal be noted accordingly. Writ petition is disposed off in above terms. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)