The main legal point established is the need for fair allotment of residential accommodation to judges based on seniority and the prevention of unjust enrichment by individuals taking advantage of multiple government housing schemes.

JUDGMENT

B.R. Gavai, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. Heard, by consent of parties.

2. Petitioner in person has approached this Court seeking various reliefs, including directions to Respondent No.1 to file an affidavit annexing the permission granted by the Hon''ble Chief Justice of Maharashtra to 39 Judges to apply for a plot of land from Respondent No.3 - Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority. He has also prayed for quashing and setting aside allotment of plot of land admeasuring 33,300 square feet in Oshivara Village in Andheri Taluka bearing CTS Nos. 2A, 2B and 3 (All partly) given to Surabhi Co-operative Housing Society (proposed), formed by 39 judges of this Court.

3. Petitioner, who is a citizen of India, claims to be a public spirited citizen and acting in public interest. Petitioner claims that, by using the provisions of Right to Information Act, he has sought various information from various authorities and on the basis of the said information, had filed various public interest litigations in this Court for espousing the public causes. This PIL has been filed by the Petitioner basically claiming that, 39 Judges of this Court conspired with the bureaucrats to grab a plot of land from the State Housing Wing viz. the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority for building a private Housing Society. It was the contention of the Petitioner that, the allotment done to the said Society was in breach of the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.882 of 2011 alongwith companion matters vide Judgment and Order dated 20th March, 2014.

4. Since in the Petition certain allegations were made with regard to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "MHADA") and since it was not a party-respondent to the PIL, Petitioner was granted leave to implead MHADA as party-respondent to this PIL. As per leave granted by this Court, Petitioner had impleaded MHADA as Respondent No.3 on 28th February, 2018. When the matter was listed before this Court on 20th April, 2018, a specific contention was raised by the Petitioner that, in respect of the plot which was the subject matter of the present PIL, initially, MHADA had finalized a Scheme for construction of tenements for Middle Income Group. However, subsequently, the said Scheme had been abandoned and altered to accommodate Judges of this Court. We had therefore adjourned the matter so as to enable the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent/MHADA to take specific instructions in that regard.

5. Thereafter, the matter was listed before this Court on various dates. Taking into consideration the importance of the matter, we had requested learned Advocate General to appear in the matter.

6. When the matter was listed on 3rd May 2018, the matter was extensively heard. On the said date, learned Advocate General stated that, the contention of the Petitioner that MHADA had finalized a Scheme for construction of tenements for Middle Income Group and subsequently the said Scheme was abandoned so as to accommodate Society of the Judges of this Court, was not correct.

7. Petitioner in person, though had initially objected to the entire Scheme, submitted that he was not averse to Judges of this Court who are domiciled in the State of Maharashtra, getting benefit of the Scheme framed by the State Government for getting preferential residential accommodation. Petitioner in person stated that, the lawyers, after sacrificing their flourishing practice, accept the Office of a Judge. He submitted that, it is impossible for a Judge to purchase decent accommodation from the open market due to sky rocketing prices of the real estate. He therefore submitted that, he had no objection if the State Government frames a Scheme and allots residential accommodation to the Judges on preferential basis. He, however, submitted that, he had a serious objection to Condition No.4 of the Government Re