-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 566 of 1992 Shri Bala Anant Ghankutkar of Bombay Indian Inhabitant residing temporarily at Chawl No.3 Room No.20, Mukesh Mills Compound Victoria Bundr Road, Colaba, Bombay 400 005 ..Petitioner vs. 1. Estate Manager (V) Maharashtra Housing Board and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, having his office at Graha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra, Bombay 400 051 2. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, constituted under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, through its President having his office at Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra, Bombay 400 051 3. State of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Bombay ..Respondents Mr.D.H.Mehta i/b Divya Shah Associates for petitioner Ms.Geeta Shashtri, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.P.SHAH A.P.SHAH A.P.SHAH & S.J.VAZIFDAR JJ. S.J.VAZIFDAR JJ. S.J.VAZIFDAR JJ. 14th January,2005 14th January,2005 14th January,2005 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per A.P.Shah J. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per A.P.Shah J. ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per A.P.Shah J.) 1. By this petition under Article 226, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate -2- writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to forthwith allot to the petitioner one tenement in Nehru Nagar, Kurla under S.I.H.Scheme of the Maharashtra Housing Board. In the year 1977 the petitioner had applied to the Maharashtra Housing Board for allotment of a low income housing tenement constructed by the Board and has paid a sum of Rs.75/- towards C.V.deposit. The petitioner claims that his name continues to be shown in the waiting list till date but he has been denied allotment without any reasonable cause and justification. Since the respondents have accepted the deposit made by the petitioner a right has been accrued to him for allotment of a tenement under the said Scheme. 2. On behalf of the respondent Shri S.G.Gautam, Joint Chief Officer, Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board has filed the counter affidavit. It is seen from the counter affidavit that the applications were called for allotment of 480 tenements under Subsidised Industrial Housing Scheme at Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East) in 1971 by advertisement in the local news paper. As the total number of applications were more than 480 tenements those were put in lots and the eligible -3- candidates were sorted out and after scrutiny 480 tenements were allotted to 480 eligible persons. The process of allotment was started on 16th January, 1971 and completed on 30th November, 1971 whereby the tenement admeasuring 200 sq.ft. each were allotted to 480 eligible persons. It appears that remaining persons were kept on a waiting list but ultimately the scheme was closed and no further allotments were made. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The scheme under which the petitioner is claiming allotment of tenement has been closed long back. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the prayer of the petitioner for allotment of the tenement under SIHS scheme. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, assured the Court that if the petitioner makes a fresh application his case will be considered under the low cost housing schemes floated by the Housing Board and if the petitioner is found eligible he will be allotted a tenement under the scheme subject to payment of costs and charges. 4. The petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.