1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 373 OF 2009 Mr. Mohan Dattaram Sarang ] age about 51 yrrs. ] Residing at "Sneha Building" ] "A" Wing, Ground Floor ] Flat No. 1, Dr. Annie Basant ] Road, Worli, Mumbai -400030 ] ... Petitioner. Versus. 1. Mr. Vinod Balkrishna ] Warik, residing at Sneha ] Building, "A" Wing, Ground ] Floor, Bldg.No.1, Dr.Annie ] Basant Road, Worli, ] Mumbai - 400 030. ] 2. The Principal Secretary & ] Chief Protocol Officer , ] Central Administration ] Department, Mantralaya ] Mumbai 400 032. ] 3. The Controller, Government ] Transport Service, Sir ] Pochkhanwala Road, ] Worli Sea Face, Worli, ] Mumbai 400 030 ] 4. The Deputy Secretary ] 2 General Administration ] 28-A, Mantralaya, ] Mumbai 400 032. ] 5. The Deputy Secretary ] General Administration ] 23-A, Mantralaya, ] Mumbai 400 032. ] 6. The Section Officer ] General Administration ] 28-A, Mantralaya, ] Mumbai 400 032. ] 7. The Under Secretary ] General Administration ] 23-A, Mantralaya, ] Mumbai 400 032. ] 8. The State of Maharashtra ] ... Respondents. Mr. Vivek Patil for the petitioner. Ms. Manisha Shekhar i/b K.J.Shekhar & Co. for respondent No.1. Mrs. M.P.Thakur AGP for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : Smt. Ranjana Desai & A.A.Sayed, JJ. DATE : August 17, 2009. JUDGMENT (PER A.A.SAYED, J.) 1. By this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :- 3 (a) Rule be issued; (b) The Respondent No.1 maybe called upon to file an affidavit to the effect that under what authority he is holding two accommodations simultaneously. (c) The Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 may be called upon to show cause as to why necessary action has not been taken against the Respondent No. 1; (d) The Respondent No.1 may be directed to vacate the Government Accommodation; (e) Any other equitable relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper maybe granted. 2. The petitioner is employed with the Transport Department of the State of Maharashtra as a driver. The Petitioner was allotted a flat at Worli more particularly described in the cause title, by virtue of being a Govt. Servant. Respondent No.1 is also a driver in the same department of Govt. of Maharashtra. The petitioner and respondent are both appointed for emergency protocol duties on the VIP's arrival in Mumbai and their departure from Mumbai. 4 3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.1 had applied for residential accommodation at Worli, Mumbai. After allotment of Govt. quarters on 15th May, 1997 at Worli to the respondent No.1, the respondent No.1 applied for and was allotted another accommodation at Mira Road, Mumbai, in September, 2004 under 5% reserve quota of the Government of Maharashtra. According to the petitioner, it is impermissible for the respondent No.1 to have two government accommodations and he is required to vacate the Govt. accommodation at Worli after having taken possession of the accommodation under 5% quota of Government of Maharashtra, allotted to him at Mira Road, Mumbai. The petitioner has relied upon the Government Resolution, dated 31st October,1979. According to the petitioner, as per the said GR the respondent No.1 should vacate the Government accommodation at Worli within one month of the date of the allotment of the Govt. accommodation at Mira Road, Mumbai, to him under 5% quota of the Government of Maharashtra, and if he failed to vacate the same, he is liable to pay economic licence fee as determined under the Bombay Civil Services Rules, Rule 855. The petitioner has also relied upon Government Resolution dated 3rd June, 2008 which states that the Government employee who is in possession of self acquired accommodation in the vicinity of Mumbai acquired under any Govt. Scheme and the area of the said self acquired accommodation is more than 50% of the Govt. 5 Accommodation (Quarter) then such Govt. employee shall be allotted Govt. Accommodation (Quarter) as per the norms of the pay scale, more particularly set out in the GR. 4. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. In the reply reliance is placed upon GR dated 5th August, 1976 issued by the finance department which states that a Govt. servant, who owns residential accommodation in place of duty is not to vacate the Govt. accommodation under the following circumstances: (i) Where the Govt. Servant is holding a post having assigned residential quarters; (ii) Where a Govt. Servant is having his house/flat at a place, other than his place of duty; (Place of duty means Municipal Corporation or Municipal limits or distance of 8 kilometers from the actual place of duty, whichever is further), and (iii) Where a Govt. Servant is specifically permitted by Government to occupy Govt. accommodation for special reasons. 5. It is further stated in the reply that the respondent No.1 falls under clause (i) and (iii). The reply also discloses that by Govt. Resolution of 1984 six Govt. quarters were assigned to the Govt. Transport Services, at Worli. It is stated that the accommodation of the respondent No.1 at Mira-Bhayander 6 Road is not within the jurisdiction of Mumbai and since the respondent No.1 is appointed for emergency protocol duties of VIP's arrival in Mumbai and their departure from Mumbai, considering the nature of duty assigned to the respondent No.1, Govt. has allotted him the Govt. quarter at Worli so that the respondent No.1 is present and available as and when VIP's arrive in Mumbai and depart from Mumbai. It is further stated that as the duty of respondent No.1 is providing transport facility to the VIP's in Mumbai and out of Mumbai, the assistance of respondent No.1 is required at all times, when the VIPs arrive and depart from Mumbai and respondent No. 1 is required to remain present at the emergency service on arrival of any VIP person and it would be difficult for respondent No. 1 to travel from Mira Road to make himself available within a short span of time. As regards GR dated 3rd June, 2008 it is stated that the employees who are residing in Mumbai/Mumbai Suburban Districts and having area of residence less than 50% of the entitled Govt. quarter are also eligible for Government quarter in Mumbai. It is further averred in the reply that the respondent No. 1 is governed by Govt. Resolution dated 3rd June, 2008 and he owns the ownership room at Mira road adm. 390 sq.ft., and therefore as per Govt. Resolution dated 3rd June, 2008, respondent No. 1 is also entitled for the Government Quarters (at Worli). There is no rejoinder filed by the petitioner to this affidavit-in-reply. 7 6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. In our view, the petitioner has no locus and cannot be said to be aggrieved or affected in any manner by the allotment of Govt. quarters at Worli to the respondent No.1. From the cause title of the petition, it is clear that the petitioner is residing in flat No.1 and respondent No.1 is residing in flat No.2 of the same building and they are immediate neighbours. They are also working in the same department. In our view the petitioner cannot use the court machinery to settle personal scores, if any, against the respondent No.1. 7. We put a query to the learned Counsel for the petitioner as to how the petitioner is aggrieved in the matter. The learned Counsel for the petitioner informed us that he has filed this petition in a representative capacity on behalf of the employees of the transport department. However, we do not find any averment in that regard in the petition. In our opinion, if at all there is any illegality, it is for the Government to take action, if it do desires. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter. 8. In the circumstances, we refrain to entertain the petition. The petition is dismissed with costs. [Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.] [ A.A.Sayed, J ] 8 THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 373 OF 2009 Date of Decision : August 17, 2009 For Approval and Signature : The Honourable Smt. Ranjana Desai, J. The Honourable Mr. Justice A.A.Sayed, J. 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judges ? 6. Whether the case involves an important question of law and whether a copy of the Judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Aurangabad office? ***** 9 10