Chandka 1 WP-1563-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1563 OF 2010 Subhas Baliram Savaskar ..Petitioner versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni with Mr. Shoaib I. Memon for Petitioner. Mr. D. A. Nalavade, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Ms. Janhavi Lanjekar ib. PRS Legal for Respondent No. 4. CORAM : DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. 07 February 2011. P.C. : The Petitioner and the Fourth Respondent applied to the First Respondent for the allotment of a flat under the HIG scheme at Versova. Six flats were reserved for persons belonging to the Schedule Castes. The Fourth Respondent was declared to be successful and was allotted a flat Chandka 2 WP-1563-10 (A/1602 in Building No. 7 at Versova). The allotment was made by draw of lots. The contention of the Petitioner is that the Fourth Respondent had filed a false affidavit stating that neither she nor her spouse owned any other accommodation. According to the Petitioner the spouse of the Fourth Respondent held flat No. 20 at Bandra Sarita Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Bandra Reclamation, Mumbai. The allotment to the Fourth Respondent is challenged. 2. An Affidavit in Reply has been filed by the Fourth Respondent stating that while it is true that her spouse had been allotted the aforesaid flat, there were differences between her and her husband and on 24 March 2008 an agreement for divorce by mutual consent was entered into. A copy of that agreement which is annexed at Exhibit ‘C’ to the Petition is relied upon by the Fourth Respondent. 3. The contention of the Petitioner is that the document at Exhibit ‘C’ is an obvious fabrication and in any event is of no legal consequence since a decree for dissolution could not have been passed save and except with an order of the Court. Chandka 3 WP-1563-10 4. In these circumstances, the relief that is sought in these proceedings is for a direction to the First and Second Respondents to cancel the allotment made to the Fourth Respondent and to initiate criminal proceedings. 5. The learned Government Pleader states during the course of the hearing that the Vigilance Cell of the First and Second Respondents conducted an enquiry and a report has been submitted which substantially justifies the grievance in the Petition. Be that as it may, the learned Government Pleader has stated before the Court that in compliance with the principles of natural justice a copy of the Vigilance Cell Report would be supplied to the Fourth Respondent and proceedings for cancellation of the allotment would be initiated in accordance with law and would be concluded within a period of four weeks from today. The learned Government Pleader states that in the event it is found that the allotment of premises to the Fourth Respondent was incorrectly made on the basis of a false representation and that the allotment is liable to be cancelled, eviction proceedings would be initiated under Section 66(1)(b) of The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. 6. In view of the statement which has been made on behalf of the First and Second Respondents by the learned Government Pleader, learned Chandka 4 WP-1563-10 counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner does not seek any further relief at this stage in these proceedings. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta, J.)