2025:BHC-OS:24525-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 39207 OF 2024

IN

WRIT PETITION NO.1042 OF 2003

Ayyappa Seva Samiti Through Its Secretary ...Petitioner

Versus

Maharashtra Housing And

Area Development Authority & Ors. ...Respondents

----

Mr. Vijay Sonawane, for the Petitioner.

Ms. Nazia Shaikh, AGP, for Respondent No.2-State.

----

CORAM : M.S.SONAK &

ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ.

DATED : 11th DECEMBER 2025

P.C. :

1 Heard Mr. Sonawane, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.

Shaikh, learned AGP.

2 This Petition seeks a review of judgment and order dated 12^th August

2024 disposing of Writ Petition No.1042 of 2003.

3 The Review Petition is instituted by the original 5^th Respondent who, though served, was neither represented through any authorized representative nor a counsel. Significantly, this Review Petition does not even offer any serious explanation why the Review Petition failed to attend to this proceeding. The learned counsel, makes vague submissions of how the date was missed and so on. Based on these submissions, there is no case

made out for review.

4 Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that there are errors apparent from the face of record. He states that the plot in question was allotted to the 5^th Respondent for Charitable purposes. He states that there is a vagueness in paragraph 44 of the order because according to him, there was no allotment order/decision dated 6^th August 2022. He also states that charity and public interest would suffer on account of the order of cancellation of the allotment of the plot to the 5^th Respondent. He states that this Court was not apprised of the fact that the 5^th Respondent has paid Rs.13 to 14 lakhs to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ("for short MHADA") against which the MHADA has executed a registered lease deed. He submitted that all these are good grounds for review.

5 Having considered the submissions advanced, we are satisfied these are no grounds for review of the judgment and order dated 12^th August

2024.

6 We note that this Petitioner had instituted a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme court bearing No.27264 of 2024. However, this Petition was not pressed because the Petitioner made a statement that it intends to go back to the High Court by filing a review application. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of by order of 22^nd November 2024.

7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court's order dated 22^nd November 2024 reads as follow:

"1. This petition is not pressed as the petitioner intends to go back to the High Court by filing review application.

2. We do not say anything in this regard.

3. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed as not pressed."

8 In this case, we have noted that no public advertisement was issued by the MHADA. No legal procedures were followed by the MHADA. There was no transparency whatsoever in the allotment made in favour of the 5^th Respondent. Therefore, MHADA, in its affidavit, did not even attempt to justify such allotment. We note that neither the State Government or MHADA justified the allotment. MHADA's only defence was that this was an allotment made under the directives of the State Government and the MHADA was not at liberty to disregard such directives.

9 Therefore, we considered the matter from all perspectives and found that such unauthorized allotment cannot be allowed to prevail. Based on the grounds urged today like public interest or charity suffering, certainly, such unauthorized allotment cannot be allowed to prevail. Similarly, these are not good grounds for review.

10 In our judgment, we have observed that this was not just an issue concerning the Petitioner and the 5^th Respondent. Public property, cannot be disposed of in this manner. Such disposal would be expressly contrary to the constitutional principles concerning disposal of public property. Such disposal was in violation of this Court's decision in the case of Ninad Gas Services & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtr