1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 649 OF 2000 ... Shivram N. Shetty ...Petitioner v/s MHADA & Ors. ...Respondent ... Mr.Ramesh Ramamurthy with Mr.Saikumar Ramamurthy for the Petitioner. Mr.Milind More, AGP for the State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & R.G.KETKAR, JJ DATED: 14th September, 2009 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board for allotment of two stalls in the newly constructed building. 2 According to the Petitioner in the old building which has been reconstructed, the Petitioner was having residential accommodation. He was also having a Restaurant. He was having a Pan-bidi shop and watch-repairing stall. The case of the Petitioner is that he has been given alternate accommodations for residential as well as restaurant purpose. But he has not been allotted any stall for his pan-bidi stall and for his watch-repairing stall. According to the Petitioner, he has submitted all the documents to the authorities including licence under the Shop & Establishment Act to show that he was having these stalls. 2. The Respondent-MHADA has filed an affidavit and it has stated that in the year 1994 before granting NOC for reconstruction 3 of the building the list of the occupants who are entitled to accommodation for various purpose in the reconstructed building was prepared and allotment of the accommodation has been done in the building as per that list. 3. The Respondent No.3 has also filed an affidavit where he has supported the case of the Respondent No.2 that the Executive Engineer of the Respondent No.2 prepared a list of the occupants with requisite details regarding user, carpet area, built up area, proportionate common area and other particulars. The same was certified on 2-7-1994. Copy of the list is also annexed to the affidavit of the Respondent No.3. Perusal of the list shows that the Petitioner is shown to be entitled to an area for non- residential purpose. His entitlement is shows 4 at serial No.4. He is also entitled to the residential area. The entry is at serial No. 16. 4. In our opinion, if the Petitioner was denied allotment of any alternative accommodation for his stalls, cause of action for the Petitioner arose in the year 1994 when the list was prepared. It is only on the basis of this list that the reconstruction was made. Obviously, therefore, the accommodation in the new building is to be found only for the persons who have been held entitled to the accommodation as per the list of 1994. For the first time the Petitioner appears to have made a grievance in the year 1999 and filed this petition in the year 2000. In our opinion, therefore, the petition is guilty of latches. Had the Petitioner made his representation at the relevant time in 5 the year 1994 and had the Respondents found that there is a substance in the grievance of the Petitioner, the plan of the building could have been revised to accomodate the Petitioner. Now, having allowed the Respondents Nos. 2 & 3 to construct the building as per the list prepared in the year 1994, the Petitioner cannot claim additional accommodation. Though the list prepared in 1994 is specifically referred to in the affidavit filed by the Respondents Nos. 2 & 3, though the Petitioner has filed rejoinder, he has no where stated that the certified list prepared by the Respondent No.2 was not known to the Petitioner in the year 1994. 5. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner, because the petitioner is guilty of latches, which are 6 unexplained. Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.G.KETKAR, J.)