SSK/905 1 WP.7209.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7209 OF 2010 Shripatrao Bandu Bhise ....Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. R. S. Apte i/b. Mr. Mandar Limaye, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Molina Thakur, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Ms. Sunanda R. Kumbhat for respondent no.5. Mr. G. W. Mattos for respondent no.6. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & RANJIT MORE, JJ. DATED : 3RD MARCH, 2011. P.C.: The petitioner is the Chairman of the development society formed for the welfare of the Gondhali Community [N.T.(B.)](the said society). In this petition, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed that directions be issued to the respondents to grant housing benefits to the members of the said society under the policies of the Government dated 1-4-1998 and 11-2-2004 which are annexed at Exh.”J” and “K” to the petition. The petitioner has further prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the applications made by the said society and accordingly allot and grant housing benefits to the members of the said society as per the policies of the Government dated 1-4-1998 and 11-2-2004. The petitioner has also SSK/905 2 WP.7209.10 prayed that direction be issued to respondent nos. 5 & 6 to consider the members of the said society for housing schemes for backward classes which are sanctioned by respondent nos. 5 & 6. 2. Affidavit in reply is filed by Mr. Amrit Dwarkanath Kubal, Deputy Director, Marketing Mumbai Housing and Area Development, a regional unit of MHADA. Paragraph 3 thereof reads as under : “ I say that the petitioners have contended that the Gondhali Samaj comes under the “Nomadic Tribe” category. I say that the Respondent No.6-MHADA has to allot tenements constructed by it under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (Estate Management, Sale, Transfer and Exchange of Tenements) Regulations, 1981. I say that under Regulation No.5 of the said Regulations, MHADA has to provide for reservations of various categories as stipulated under Rule 13 of the MHAD (Disposal of land) Rules, 1981, the relevant extract whereof is as under “ “13. Reservation of tenements [(i)] In respect of every group of tenements, or plots of vacant land in a layout to be disposed of for residential use, the Authority shall reserve, for the following categories of persons, tenements/plots in the percentages shown against them:- Category Percentage [(1)] Schedule Castes including Neo-Buddhist 11% (1-a) Schedule Tribes 6% SSK/905 3 WP.7209.10 (1-b) Nomadic Tribes 1-1/2% (1-c) Denotified Tribes 1-1/2% (2) Journalists 2.5% (3) Freedom Fighters 2.5% (4) Blind or physically handicapped persons or persons in absolute need of accommodation of health ground 2% Thus, the members of the petitioner-society will apply for tenements in the reserved category for “Nomadic Tribes’ and that the said applications received from the said category shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law. I say that the petitioners have inter-alia sought the implementation of the GR dated 1st April, 1998 qua the tenements constructed by MHADA. I say that there is a specific reservation for the members of the Nomadic Tribes in the said Regulation. Thus, the question of the said GR being made applicable per se to the petitioners cannot and does not arise at all.” It is clear from the above paragraph that the 6th respondent has already reserved 1-½ % of tenements for “Nomadic Tribes”. Learned counsel for the 6th respondent states that in case, the said society’s members make application pursuant to the advertisements which will be issued in near future by the 6th respondent, the 6th respondent will consider the said applications under the reservations stipulated under Rule 13 of the MHAD (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1981 in accordance with law. SSK/905 4 WP.7209.10 3. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 states that even CIDCO has guidelines and similar reservation is provided for Nomadic Tribes. She further states that the applications made by the members of the said society pursuant to the advertisements will be considered in accordance with law. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 5 & 6 state that however,the insistence of the members of the said society that they should be provided tenements in one building is not feasible. Tenements will be provided as per availability. All these statements are recorded and accepted by this Court. In view of the statements recorded and accepted by this Court, the petitioner grievance will not survive. The petition is disposed of accordingly. 4. The Civil Application No. 2946 of 2010 is already disposed of. (RANJIT MORE, J.) (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)