-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1338 OF 2001 1. Vasant Keshav Tamhankar ) 2. Vishwas Vasant Tamhankar ) Both adults, residing at Tagore Nagar, Chawl ) No. 156/2585, Group No. 5/8, Vikhroli (East), ) Mumbai-400 083 ).Petitioners versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, ) through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home ) Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032 ) 2. The Deputy Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, ) Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, ) Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 ) 3. The Secretary, Housing & Special Assistant ) Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, ) Mumbai-400 032. ) 4. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay, ) Mumbai-400 001 ).Respondents Mr. Neville Deboo, instructed by Mr. S.G. Kudle, for the petitioners. Mr. Pradip Jadhav, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 23 rd June, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.M. Savant, J.) By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing and setting aside of the order dated 6th -2- September, 2000 and further seek relief that the respondents be directed to transfer the tenement in possession of the petitioners on ownership basis in pursuance of the Government Resolution dated 18th May, 1987. Such of the facts which are necessary to be cited are stated thus: 2. The petitioner No.1 was working in the Police Department and retired in 1996. The petitioner No.1 was allotted a tenement being Group No. 5/8 in Chawl No. 156/2589 at Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli (East) as service quarters in the year 1961. The petitioner No.1 retired in the year 1996. On the retirement of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.2, who by then had been recruited in the Police Department as a Constable, was allowed to continue in occupation of the said service quarters. 3. The said tenement is in a structure of ground plus one storey. There are similar structures in the area known as Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli (East), Mumbai. These tenements were initially constructed for the industrial workers and the persons belonging to low income group as also the persons belonging to the economically backward class. The State Government by Resolution dated 18th May, 1987 resolved to transfer on ownership basis the said single storeyed tenements to the occupants thereof. The conditions on which the said tenements were to be transferred are mentioned in Annexure-A to the said Resolution. The said Resolution states that the Resolution would not apply to 672 tenements in -3- the iron sheet chawls at Siddharth Nagar, Goregaon. 4. By another Resolution dated 21st January, 1989, the Government took a decision to transfer on ownership basis the tenements in the buildings of the Mumbai Housing Board at Abhyuday Nagar, Kalachowkie, Mumbai. The petitioners being in occupation of the said tenement were desirous of seeking benefits of the said Resolutions and, therefore, had filed earlier writ petition being Writ Petition No. 117 of 2000 which came to be disposed of by an order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 14th March, 2000, directing the petitioners to make a representation to the authorities. The petitioners accordingly made a representation. The said representation was disposed of by the authorities by the order which is impugned in the present petition. 5. We have heard the learned the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the government could not discriminate in so far as the police personnel are concerned. By the said aforesaid Resolutions, ownership rights were sought to be conferred on the other occupants of the tenements in question and there is no reason why police personnel have to be denied the same rights. The learned counsel submitted that though the Resolution passed was not directly in respect of the Tagore Nagar wherein the tenement occupied by the petitioners is situated -4- but on a parity the petitioners and the other 120 occupants of the tenements in question in Tagore Nagar ought to have been given the benefits of the said Resolution. The learned counsel has drawn our attention to the text of the said Resolution and contended that even the State Government had issued directions that the housing society of the police personnel should be given the benefit of the said Resolutions. 6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the Resolutions on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners are not applicable to Tagore Nagar wherein the tenement occupied by the petitioners is situated. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the Commissioner of Police is the tenant of the tenement occupied by the petitioners as well as 120 tenements in the said Tagore Nagar area. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the said Resolutions and the decision of MHADA, if any, would, therefore, enure to the Commissioner of Police and not the individual occupants who are occupying them as service quarters. The learned Government Pleader, in the alternative submitted that, assuming that the said Resolutions are applicable, the petitioners have not approached the authorities within the time stipulated in the said Resolutions. -5- 7. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It would be significant to note that the Resolution of 1987 by which the ownership rights were sought to be conferred was to apply to the occupants of the tenements in question. In so far as the persons other than the police personnel are concerned, they may be occupying the said tenements in their individual capacity as tenants of MHADA but in so far as the police personnel are concerned, admittedly the Commissioner of Police is the tenant of the tenements in question as he has been paying rent to MHADA. The said fact cannot be disputed in the light of the material placed on record on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the Commissioner of Police has paid the service tax and the other charges to MHADA. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the benefit of the said Resolutions should enure to them is fallacious as the benefit, if any, will enure to the Commissioner of Police who is occupying the same as a tenant. The petitioners could only be said to be occupying the same as the nominees of the Commissioner of Police. In so far as the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution is concerned, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners in view of the fact that the petitioners are not similarly situated as the other persons who might have benefited under the said Government Resolution. The petitioners, as stated hereinabove, were serving in the Police. In fact, petitioner No.2 is still in police force and the said tenement is allotted to him as a service quarter. -6- 8. It would be useful at this stage to refer to the averments made in the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. In the affidavit filed by one Vasant Tanaji Agavane, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Headquarter-3), it has been stated that every year almost about 500 to 1000 new constabulary join the police force and, therefore, the said tenements are required as service quarters. It has further been averred in the said affidavit that the Commissioner of Police has sanctioned Rs. 18,01,229/- for the service tax and water charges of the 121 tenements at Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli for the period April 1998 to July, 2004 and the amount has already been paid to MHADA. The aforesaid fact clearly buttresses the submission of the learned Government Pleader that without the No Objection Certificate of the Commissioner of Police, the tenements in question cannot be transferred to the occupants thereof. In view of what is stated in the said affidavit as regards the requirements of the police force, no writ of mandamus can be issued mandating the Commissioner of Police to issue a NOC to the petitioners for transfer of the said tenement in their favour on ownership basis. In view of what we have held hereinabove, it is not necessary for us to consider as to whether the petitioners had applied in time or not. 9. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the challenge to the impugned order dated 6th September, 2000 by which the petitioners’ representation was rejected. In that view of the matter, no case for grant of any -7- reliefs in the above petition is made out by the petitioners. Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.