Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-OS:748
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.4146 OF 2024
Smt. Vaijyanti Thorwat ]
w/o. Late Anandrao Thorwat ]
Age: 68 years, Occu:- Housewife, ]
Address:- 5/264, Pawan CHSL, MHB Colony, ]
G.D. Ambekar Marg, Near Kalachowki Police ]
Station, Kalachowki Tank Road, Abhyudaya ]
Nagar, Mumbai 400 033. ].. Petitioner.
v/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
(Summons to be served upon Ld. ]
Government Pleader, Original Side, ]
High Court, Bombay) ]
2 Maharashtra Housing and Area ]
Development Authority, (MHADA) ]
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Kalanagar, ]
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ]
3 The Appellate Authority of ]
Asst. Commissioner-Labour & Deputy ]
Chief Officer (E), Mumbai Mandal - ]
MHADA, Griha Nirman Bhavan, ]
Kalanagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 ]
4 The Appellate Officer-Deputy Chief ]
Officer-East-Mumbai Mandal- MHADA, ]
Gruhnirman Bhavan, Bandra (E), ]
Mumbai 400 051. ]
5 Deputy Chief Officer-Mill, ]
Dharavi Rehabilitation Project, Mumbai ]
Mandal, MHADA, Gruhnirman Bhavan ]
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. ]
6 The Estate Manager-Dharavi, ]
Mumbai Housing and Area Development ]
Board, Gruhnirman Bhavan, ]
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. ].. Respondents.
Digitally signed
by SMITA
RAJNIKANT
JOSHI
Date:
2026.01.13
15:06:35 +0530
SMITA
RAJNIKANT
JOSHI
S.R.JOSHI 1 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
Adv. Shivraj Kunchge, for the Petitioner.
Adv. Gauri Sawant, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Adv. Satyajeet P. Dighe (through V. C.), for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
CORAM: FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA,J.
th
RESERVED ON : 11 DECEMBER, 2025.
th
PRONOUNCED ON: 13 JANUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGEMENT:-
1 RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by
consent of the parties.
th
2 This Writ Petition challenges Orders dated 11 February, 2022
th
and 8 June, 2022 passed by the Respondents, disqualifying Petitioner’s
husband from being entitled to a flat in the MHADA Lottery Housing
Scheme under the Mill Worker’s Criteria.
3 Before considering the impugned orders and the arguments
of the parties, it would be appropriate to set out the facts in the matter.
4 The Petitioner’s husband applied for a residential flat in
MHADA’s Housing Scheme by making Application No. 79484. The
Petitioner’s husband won the lottery and the Lottery Results for the said
ML16 – Mill Worker Lottery showed that the Petitioner had been allotted
Flat No. 2,D, 19, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the said flat”).
5 After the declaration of the lottery results by MHADA,
S.R.JOSHI 2 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
th
Respondent No.4 issued the First Intimation Letter dated 25 July, 2016
requesting Petitioner’s husband to submit the prescribed documents. The
said letter categorically stated that a mill worker who had been employed
st
as a mill worker on 1 January, 1982 or thereafter in Century Mills and
who had been permanently employed in the said mill, or had worked
continuously for 240 days in that mill, would be eligible for the said flat.
The said letter also contains other terms and conditions.
6 Thereafter, Respondent No.4 issued a Provisional Offer Letter
th
dated 29 September, 2018 to the Petitioner’s husband whereby he was,
inter alia,
intimated to pay costs of the said flat of Rs.9,50,000/- by
Demand Draft.
st
7 Respondent No.4 issued another letter dated 1 October,
2018 to the Petitioner’s husband directing him to deposit the cost of the
said flat in Kotak Mahindra Bank within the specified time period, failing
which, the Provisional Offer Letter would be cancelled.
nd
8 On 2 November, 2018, the Petitioner’s husband made a total
payment of Rs.9,50,000/- in respect of the costs of the said flat.
9 After paying the costs of the said flat, Respondent No.4 issued
rd
an allotment letter dated 3 June, 2019 and a Possession Letter-cum-
rd
Possession Receipt dated 3 July, 2019 in the name of the Petitioner’s
husband.
th
10 Further, MHADA issued a Possession Receipt dated 9 July,
2019 to the Petitioner’s husband.
S.R.JOSHI 3 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
th
11 By a letter dated 30 December, 2021 addressed to the
Petitioner’s husband, Respondent No.4 informed him that a complaint had
been received regarding the Service Certificate submitted by him as a
worker in the said Century Mills and that a request for re-examination of
his documents had been received by Respondent No.4. Accordingly, the
Petitioner was informed that he should be present with all original
documents and identity cards regarding his employment with Century
st
Mills at a hearing to be held in Room No. 226, 1 Floor, Housing House,
th
Kalanagar, Bandra, Mumbai 400 051 on 7 January, 2022 at 1.00 p.m.
The said letter stated that, if the Petitioner was not present in the said
hearing, a final decision would be taken on the basis of the documents
available in Nasti and after that none of the Petitioner’s husband’s
statements would be taken into consideration.
12 Thereafter, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 issued impugned Order
th
dated 11 February, 2022. The said Order stated that the letter issued to
the Petitioner’s husband had been sent back by the Post Office, marked
“unclaimed”. The said letter also stated that the Petitioner’s husband did
st
not appear to be working as a mill worker on 1 January, 1982 and,
therefore, he was disqualified from the Housing Scheme.
th
13 Thereafter, a letter dated 16 February, 2022 was issued by
Respondent No.4 to Respondent No.5, stating that the Petitioner’s
husband was disqualified from the Housing Scheme.
st
14 By a letter dated 1 April, 2022 addressed to the Petitioner’s
husband, Respondent No.4 informed him that he was being given one
S.R.JOSHI 4 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
more chance to be present with all original documents and identity cards
regarding his employment with Century Mills. By the said letter, the
Petitioner’s husband was requested to attend a hearing at Room No. 226,
st th
1 Floor, Housing House, Kalanagar, Bandra, Mumbai 400 051 on 8
April, 2022 at 12.30 p.m.
th
15 By a letter dated 12 April, 2022 addressed to the Petitioner’s
husband, he was informed that he was being given another chance for
producing all original documents and identity cards regarding his
employment with Century Mills and was called upon to attend the hearing
th
on 27 April, 2022 at 12.30 p.m.
th
16 A hearing was held on 27 April, 2022, but in the said
hearing, the Petitioner’s husband was absent.
th
17 By a letter dated 11 May, 2022 addressed to the Petitioner’s
husband by Respondent No.4, it was stated that, although by various
letters, Petitioner’s husband was repeatedly informed to attend the
hearing, he had not attended the hearing. In these circumstances, the
Petitioner’s husband was informed that he was being given one last
chance to remain present for a hearing with all original documents and
th
identity cards regarding his employment with Century Mills on 27 May,
2022 at 12.00 p.m.
th
18 By the impugned Order dated 8 June, 2022, it was recorded
th
that the hearing on 27 May, 2022 was attended by the son of the
Petitioner’s husband, namely – Vinayak A. Thorwat, on behalf of the
S.R.JOSHI 5 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
Petitioner’s husband. The said Order further records that Vinayak A.
Thorwat informed that the Petitioner’s husband could not come to the
hearing due to his ill health and had given a Power of Attorney to him to
attend the hearing. Further, it was recorded that, at the hearing, Vinayak
A. Thorwat submitted Provident Fund Receipt of Century Mills for the
year 1979 – 1980 and other documents. It is further recorded that, from
the original documents submitted, it was clear that the Petitioner’s
st
husband was not working with Century Mills on 1 January, 1982.
Accordingly, the decision of his disqualification from the Housing Scheme
was upheld.
th
19 A Notice dated 5 August, 2022 was issued to the Petitioner’s
husband by Respondent No.5. By the said Notice, the Petitioner’s husband
was informed that he had been disqualified in respect of the said flat. It is
also recorded that the Petitioner’s husband was working as a Welfare
Officer – Grade I in Mumbai Port Trust and was not working as a mill
st
worker on 1 January, 1982. The said letter informs the Petitioner’s
husband that he had been disqualified, and that as per the instructions
issued by Respondent No.1 from time-to-time, the said flat would be
allotted to another mill worker in the waiting list.
th
20 Respondent No.6 then addressed a Notice dated 18 October,
2022 to the Petitioner’s husband informing him that he had not yet
handed over possession of the said flat.
th
21 On 27 February, 2023, Respondent No.6 addressed a letter
to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Mission Branch), Greater Bombay
S.R.JOSHI 6 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
Police Commissioner Office, and requested him to provide police
protection to take forceful possession of the said flat from the Petitioner’s
husband.
th
22 On 14 March, 2023, Respondent No.6 took forceful
possession of the said flat from the Petitioner and sealed the said flat.
th
23 Since, the Petitioner’s husband had expired on 26 October,
2022, the Petitioner filed this present Petition impugning the said Orders
th th
dated 11 February, 2022 and 8 June, 2022.
24 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
th th
first submitted that the Orders dated 11 February, 2022 and 8 June,
2022 were in violation of the principles of natural justice as an
appropriate opportunity had not been given to the Petitioner’s husband to
present his case. He submitted that, on this ground alone, this Petition
ought to be dismissed.
25 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
rd
also referred to a Government Circular dated 3 August, 2012 and
submitted that a person who had worked in Century Mills for a
continuous period of 240 days was entitled to the said flat. The learned
Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner’s husband
had worked in Century Mills from April, 1973 to March, 1981, and,
therefore, he had worked for a period much more than 240 days and was
qualified to get the said flat.
S.R.JOSHI 7 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
26 The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that,
after allotting the said flat to the Petitioner’s husband, the Respondents
could not have taken back the said flat from the Petitioner’s husband/
Petitioner. Although, there is no averment to that effect in the Writ
Petition, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, on the
basis of obtaining the said flat, the Petitioner’s husband had sold his house
in the village. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, for
this reason also, the Respondents were not entitled to take back the said
flat from the Petitioner.
27 In conclusion, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that, for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Orders dated
th th
11 February, 2022 and 8 June, 2022 ought to be quashed and set aside.
28 On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 vehemently opposed the granting of any reliefs
in the present Petition. He made various submissions by relying on the
th
Affidavit in Reply of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 dated 12 September, 2024
th
and Affidavit in Reply of Respondent No.1 dated 9 October, 2024.
29 The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6
submitted that the State of Maharashtra had declared the allotment of the
said flat/ house by a way of a Lottery System. The State Government set
st
the eligibility criteria as a cut off date of 1 January, 1982, according to
st
which a mill worker who was employed on or after 1 January, 1982 was
eligible for allotment by way of a lottery system. He further pointed out
th
that a letter dated 15 June, 2012, was issued by the State of Maharashtra
S.R.JOSHI 8 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
to the Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of MHADA thereby
st
clarifying the eligibility criteria, with a cut-off date of 1 January, 1982,
for allotment of house to mill workers i.e. the mill worker should be
st
employed with the Century Mills on 1 January, 1982 or thereafter.
30 The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6
submitted that, in view of these directions, an advertisement was
th
published on 9 May, 2026 regarding the allotment of houses to workers
of six mills, including Century Mills. The Petitioner’s husband submitted
his application along with necessary Affidavit and Indemnity Bonds.
Subsequently, the said flat was allotted to the Petitioner’s husband. He
submitted that actual and physical possession of the said flat was handed
th
over to the Petitioner’s husband on 7 July, 2019. The learned Counsel
for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 further submitted that MHADA Office had
received a letter from the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer of MHADA
wherein it was mentioned that a complaint was received against the
Petitioner’s husband. The complaint alleged that he was an employee of
the Mumbai Port Trust as on 1981, and, therefore, as of the cut-off date of
st
1 January, 1982, he was not an employee of Century Mills and, therefore,
was not eligible/ entitled to the allotment of the said flat by the MHADA.
31 The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 stated that,
on the basis of the aforesaid letter, an internal enquiry was conducted by
MHADA and accordingly a Report was prepared. It was revealed from the
th
enquiry Report dated 11 February, 2022 that the Petitioner’s husband
was ineligible for allotment of the said flat.
S.R.JOSHI 9 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
32 The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 thereafter
submitted that various opportunities were given to the Petitioner’s
husband to appear for a hearing and submit necessary documents to show
st
that he was employed with Century Mills as on 1 January, 1982. He
submitted that, after several opportunities were given to the Petitioner’s
th
husband to attend the hearing, at the hearing held on 27 May, 2022,
Vinayak A. Thorwat, the son of the Petitioner’s husband remained present
for the hearing. On perusal of the documents submitted by him on behalf
of the Petitioner’s husband, it was revealed that the Petitioner’s husband
st
was not an employee of Century Mills on or after the cut-off date of 1
th
January, 1982. As a result, Order dated 11 February, 2022 was upheld on
th
8 June, 2022.
33 The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 further
submitted that, pursuant to the disqualification Order, the amount
received from the Petitioner’s husband was returned to him vide a Cheque
which was sent through Professional Courier by the Accounts Department
of MHADA. He further submitted that the eviction proceeding was carried
th
out on 14 March, 2023 and possession of the flat was taken back by
MHADA.
34 The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 also relied on
th th
Minutes of Meetings held on 4 August, 2011 and 4 October, 2011
st
wherein it was clearly recorded that the cut-off date should be 1 January,
1982. These meetings were attended by various Ministers and Secretaries
th
of the State Government. The meeting of 4 October, 2011 was also
attended by representatives of various Mill Workers’ Unions.
S.R.JOSHI 10 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
35 Further, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6
submitted that, for all the aforesaid reasons, the Petition should be
dismissed. However, he stated that Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were ready to
return the sum of Rs.9,50,000/- paid by the Petitioner’s husband to the
Petitioner.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-
36 The first submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
th th
is that the Orders dated 11 February, 2022 and 8 June, 2022 have been
passed without giving a proper hearing to the Petitioner’s husband and,
therefore, are in violation of the principles of natural justice. I am unable
to accept the said submission. Although, it is true that the Order dated
th
11 February, 2022 disqualifying the Petitioner’s husband was passed
without giving any hearing to the Petitioner’s husband, thereafter,
subsequently, various opportunities were given by the Respondents to the
Petitioner’s husband to present his case and demonstrate that he was
qualified for the Housing Scheme by being a Mill Worker employed by
st
Century Mills as on 1 January, 1982 or thereafter. After remaining absent
for certain hearings, the Petitioner’s husband’s son Vinayak A. Thorwat
th
finally remained present at the hearing held on 27 May, 2022 and
submitted documents, including the Provident Fund Receipt of Century
Mills for the year 1979-1980. However, the documents produced on
behalf of the Petitioner’s husband by the Petitioner’s son clearly showed
that the Petitioner’s husband was not an employee with Century Mills as
st
on 1 January, 1982 and, therefore, he was liable to be disqualified in
respect of the said flat. These facts show that the Petitioner’s husband had
S.R.JOSHI 11 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
been given ample opportunity to present his case and, only thereafter, the
th
Order dated 8 June, 2022 was passed. Thereafter, various letters were
issued to the Petitioner’s husband to vacate the said flat, and finally
Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 had to take forceful possession of the said flat
from the Petitioner’s husband. In my view, therefore, in the aforesaid
circumstances, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice on
behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
37 The next submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
rd
is that the Government Circular dated 3 August, 2012 prescribes a
qualification of only 240 days of continuous employment in Century Mills
for being eligible for a house in the Housing Scheme and that the
Petitioner’s husband met with the said qualification as he was employed in
Century Mills from April, 1973 to March, 1981. It is the submission of the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner that, in light of the same, the
Petitioner’s husband could not have been evicted from the said flat.
38 I am unable to accept this submission of the learned Counsel
th
for the Petitioner. The Minutes of Meeting held on 4 August, 2011, where
Ministers, Party Group Leaders of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative
Council and Secretaries were present, show that a decision was taken that
st
the cut-off date for the Housing Scheme should be 1 January, 1982. At
th
the meeting held on 4 October, 2011 where Ministers, Secretaries and
representatives of Mill Workers’ Unions were present, the decision
st
regarding the cut-off date being 1 January, 1982 was again confirmed.
This clearly shows that one of the qualifications for being eligible for the
Housing Scheme was that the mill worker should be employed with
S.R.JOSHI 12 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
st
Century Mills on 1 January, 1982 or thereafter.
st
39 Further, by a letter dated 1 June, 2012, MHADA had once
st
again stated that the cut-off date shall be 1 January, 1982. The same was
th
reiterated in the letter dated 15 June, 2012 issued by MHADA.
40 Further, it is very important to note that the First Intimation
th
Letter dated 25 July, 2016, which was issued to the Petitioner’s husband,
clearly stated that the eligibility criteria was that the Mill Workers should
st
have been employed as a mill worker on 1 January, 1982 in Century Mills
and that he should be permanently employed. The said letter further
states that if he is working continuously for 240 days, he would be
deemed to have been permanently employed. The said First Intimation
Letter, which was accepted by the Petitioner’s husband, therefore, also
st
clearly lays down the cut-off date as 1 January, 1982. For all these
reasons, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the
eligibility criteria was only of being employed continuously for 240 days,
cannot be accepted.
41 The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that
after allotting the said flat to the Petitioner’s husband, the Respondents
could not have taken it away, also cannot be accepted. The Petitioner’s
st
husband was aware that the cut-off date was 1 January, 1982 as the
th
same has been clearly mentioned in the First Intimation Letter dated 25
July, 2016, which has been received by the Petitioner’s husband, and
which has been produced by the Petitioner in the present proceedings.
S.R.JOSHI 13 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
42 Despite being made aware of the said eligibility criteria of cut
st
off date of 1 January, 1982, the Petitioner’s husband took possession of
the said flat and paid Rs.9,50,000/-. For these reasons, there cannot be
any equity in favour of the Petitioner’s husband, and the Petitioner’s
husband is correctly disqualified and evicted from the said flat.
43 As far as the submission of the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner that, on the basis of obtaining this flat, the Petitioner’s husband
sold the house in the village, is concerned, the same is not even
mentioned in the Petition.
44 Be that as it may, even in the Petition, the Petitioner has not
produced any proof to show that any house in the village had been sold by
the Petitioner’s husband after getting the said flat in the Housing Lottery.
Therefore, the said contention of the Petitioner cannot be accepted.
45 In my view, in the light of the aforesaid, the present Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
46 Further, as far as the sum of Rs.9,50,000/- paid by the
Petitioner’s husband is concerned, the Respondents have offered to return
the same to the Petitioner. Even otherwise, since the Petitioner’s husband
has been held to be ineligible for getting the said flat, Respondent No.2 is
required to return the said sum of Rs.9,50,000/- to the Petitioner with
th
simple interest, at the rate of 12% p.a., from 14 March, 2023 (the date
when possession of the said flat was taken back from the Petitioner) till
the date of payment/ realization.
S.R.JOSHI 14 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
47 For all the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order:-
(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged;
(ii) Respondent No.2 to return to the Petitioner a sum of Rs.9,50,000/-
(Rupees Nine lakhs fifty thousand only) with simple interest, at the
th
rate of 12% p.a., from 14 March, 2023 (the date of eviction) till
the payment/ realization, within a period of four weeks from the
date of uploading of this order;
(iii) In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as
to costs.
(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA,J.)
S.R.JOSHI 15 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.4146 OF 2024
Smt. Vaijyanti Thorwat ]
w/o. Late Anandrao Thorwat ]
Age: 68 years, Occu:- Housewife, ]
Address:- 5/264, Pawan CHSL, MHB Colony, ]
G.D. Ambekar Marg, Near Kalachowki Police ]
Station, Kalachowki Tank Road, Abhyudaya ]
Nagar, Mumbai 400 033. ].. Petitioner.
v/s.
1. The State of Maharashtra ]
(Summons to be served upon Ld. ]
Government Pleader, Original Side, ]
High Court, Bombay) ]
2 Maharashtra Housing and Area ]
Development Authority, (MHADA) ]
Griha Nirman Bhavan, Kalanagar, ]
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ]
3 The Appellate Authority of ]
Asst. Commissioner-Labour & Deputy ]
Chief Officer (E), Mumbai Mandal - ]
MHADA, Griha Nirman Bhavan, ]
Kalanagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400051 ]
4 The Appellate Officer-Deputy Chief ]
Officer-East-Mumbai Mandal- MHADA, ]
Gruhnirman Bhavan, Bandra (E), ]
Mumbai 400 051. ]
5 Deputy Chief Officer-Mill, ]
Dharavi Rehabilitation Project, Mumbai ]
Mandal, MHADA, Gruhnirman Bhavan ]
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. ]
6 The Estate Manager-Dharavi, ]
Mumbai Housing and Area Development ]
Board, Gruhnirman Bhavan, ]
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. ].. Respondents.
Digitally signed
by SMITA
RAJNIKANT
JOSHI
Date:
2026.01.13
15:06:35 +0530
SMITA
RAJNIKANT
JOSHI
S.R.JOSHI 1 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
Adv. Shivraj Kunchge, for the Petitioner.
Adv. Gauri Sawant, AGP for Respondent No.1.
Adv. Satyajeet P. Dighe (through V. C.), for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
CORAM: FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA,J.
th
RESERVED ON : 11 DECEMBER, 2025.
th
PRONOUNCED ON: 13 JANUARY, 2026.
ORAL JUDGEMENT:-
1 RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by
consent of the parties.
th
2 This Writ Petition challenges Orders dated 11 February, 2022
th
and 8 June, 2022 passed by the Respondents, disqualifying Petitioner’s
husband from being entitled to a flat in the MHADA Lottery Housing
Scheme under the Mill Worker’s Criteria.
3 Before considering the impugned orders and the arguments
of the parties, it would be appropriate to set out the facts in the matter.
4 The Petitioner’s husband applied for a residential flat in
MHADA’s Housing Scheme by making Application No. 79484. The
Petitioner’s husband won the lottery and the Lottery Results for the said
ML16 – Mill Worker Lottery showed that the Petitioner had been allotted
Flat No. 2,D, 19, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the said flat”).
5 After the declaration of the lottery results by MHADA,
S.R.JOSHI 2 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
th
Respondent No.4 issued the First Intimation Letter dated 25 July, 2016
requesting Petitioner’s husband to submit the prescribed documents. The
said letter categorically stated that a mill worker who had been employed
st
as a mill worker on 1 January, 1982 or thereafter in Century Mills and
who had been permanently employed in the said mill, or had worked
continuously for 240 days in that mill, would be eligible for the said flat.
The said letter also contains other terms and conditions.
6 Thereafter, Respondent No.4 issued a Provisional Offer Letter
th
dated 29 September, 2018 to the Petitioner’s husband whereby he was,
inter alia,
intimated to pay costs of the said flat of Rs.9,50,000/- by
Demand Draft.
st
7 Respondent No.4 issued another letter dated 1 October,
2018 to the Petitioner’s husband directing him to deposit the cost of the
said flat in Kotak Mahindra Bank within the specified time period, failing
which, the Provisional Offer Letter would be cancelled.
nd
8 On 2 November, 2018, the Petitioner’s husband made a total
payment of Rs.9,50,000/- in respect of the costs of the said flat.
9 After paying the costs of the said flat, Respondent No.4 issued
rd
an allotment letter dated 3 June, 2019 and a Possession Letter-cum-
rd
Possession Receipt dated 3 July, 2019 in the name of the Petitioner’s
husband.
th
10 Further, MHADA issued a Possession Receipt dated 9 July,
2019 to the Petitioner’s husband.
S.R.JOSHI 3 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
th
11 By a letter dated 30 December, 2021 addressed to the
Petitioner’s husband, Respondent No.4 informed him that a complaint had
been received regarding the Service Certificate submitted by him as a
worker in the said Century Mills and that a request for re-examination of
his documents had been received by Respondent No.4. Accordingly, the
Petitioner was informed that he should be present with all original
documents and identity cards regarding his employment with Century
st
Mills at a hearing to be held in Room No. 226, 1 Floor, Housing House,
th
Kalanagar, Bandra, Mumbai 400 051 on 7 January, 2022 at 1.00 p.m.
The said letter stated that, if the Petitioner was not present in the said
hearing, a final decision would be taken on the basis of the documents
available in Nasti and after that none of the Petitioner’s husband’s
statements would be taken into consideration.
12 Thereafter, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 issued impugned Order
th
dated 11 February, 2022. The said Order stated that the letter issued to
the Petitioner’s husband had been sent back by the Post Office, marked
“unclaimed”. The said letter also stated that the Petitioner’s husband did
st
not appear to be working as a mill worker on 1 January, 1982 and,
therefore, he was disqualified from the Housing Scheme.
th
13 Thereafter, a letter dated 16 February, 2022 was issued by
Respondent No.4 to Respondent No.5, stating that the Petitioner’s
husband was disqualified from the Housing Scheme.
st
14 By a letter dated 1 April, 2022 addressed to the Petitioner’s
husband, Respondent No.4 informed him that he was being given one
S.R.JOSHI 4 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
more chance to be present with all original documents and identity cards
regarding his employment with Century Mills. By the said letter, the
Petitioner’s husband was requested to attend a hearing at Room No. 226,
st th
1 Floor, Housing House, Kalanagar, Bandra, Mumbai 400 051 on 8
April, 2022 at 12.30 p.m.
th
15 By a letter dated 12 April, 2022 addressed to the Petitioner’s
husband, he was informed that he was being given another chance for
producing all original documents and identity cards regarding his
employment with Century Mills and was called upon to attend the hearing
th
on 27 April, 2022 at 12.30 p.m.
th
16 A hearing was held on 27 April, 2022, but in the said
hearing, the Petitioner’s husband was absent.
th
17 By a letter dated 11 May, 2022 addressed to the Petitioner’s
husband by Respondent No.4, it was stated that, although by various
letters, Petitioner’s husband was repeatedly informed to attend the
hearing, he had not attended the hearing. In these circumstances, the
Petitioner’s husband was informed that he was being given one last
chance to remain present for a hearing with all original documents and
th
identity cards regarding his employment with Century Mills on 27 May,
2022 at 12.00 p.m.
th
18 By the impugned Order dated 8 June, 2022, it was recorded
th
that the hearing on 27 May, 2022 was attended by the son of the
Petitioner’s husband, namely – Vinayak A. Thorwat, on behalf of the
S.R.JOSHI 5 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
Petitioner’s husband. The said Order further records that Vinayak A.
Thorwat informed that the Petitioner’s husband could not come to the
hearing due to his ill health and had given a Power of Attorney to him to
attend the hearing. Further, it was recorded that, at the hearing, Vinayak
A. Thorwat submitted Provident Fund Receipt of Century Mills for the
year 1979 – 1980 and other documents. It is further recorded that, from
the original documents submitted, it was clear that the Petitioner’s
st
husband was not working with Century Mills on 1 January, 1982.
Accordingly, the decision of his disqualification from the Housing Scheme
was upheld.
th
19 A Notice dated 5 August, 2022 was issued to the Petitioner’s
husband by Respondent No.5. By the said Notice, the Petitioner’s husband
was informed that he had been disqualified in respect of the said flat. It is
also recorded that the Petitioner’s husband was working as a Welfare
Officer – Grade I in Mumbai Port Trust and was not working as a mill
st
worker on 1 January, 1982. The said letter informs the Petitioner’s
husband that he had been disqualified, and that as per the instructions
issued by Respondent No.1 from time-to-time, the said flat would be
allotted to another mill worker in the waiting list.
th
20 Respondent No.6 then addressed a Notice dated 18 October,
2022 to the Petitioner’s husband informing him that he had not yet
handed over possession of the said flat.
th
21 On 27 February, 2023, Respondent No.6 addressed a letter
to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Mission Branch), Greater Bombay
S.R.JOSHI 6 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
Police Commissioner Office, and requested him to provide police
protection to take forceful possession of the said flat from the Petitioner’s
husband.
th
22 On 14 March, 2023, Respondent No.6 took forceful
possession of the said flat from the Petitioner and sealed the said flat.
th
23 Since, the Petitioner’s husband had expired on 26 October,
2022, the Petitioner filed this present Petition impugning the said Orders
th th
dated 11 February, 2022 and 8 June, 2022.
24 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
th th
first submitted that the Orders dated 11 February, 2022 and 8 June,
2022 were in violation of the principles of natural justice as an
appropriate opportunity had not been given to the Petitioner’s husband to
present his case. He submitted that, on this ground alone, this Petition
ought to be dismissed.
25 The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
rd
also referred to a Government Circular dated 3 August, 2012 and
submitted that a person who had worked in Century Mills for a
continuous period of 240 days was entitled to the said flat. The learned
Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Petitioner’s husband
had worked in Century Mills from April, 1973 to March, 1981, and,
therefore, he had worked for a period much more than 240 days and was
qualified to get the said flat.
S.R.JOSHI 7 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
26 The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that,
after allotting the said flat to the Petitioner’s husband, the Respondents
could not have taken back the said flat from the Petitioner’s husband/
Petitioner. Although, there is no averment to that effect in the Writ
Petition, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, on the
basis of obtaining the said flat, the Petitioner’s husband had sold his house
in the village. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, for
this reason also, the Respondents were not entitled to take back the said
flat from the Petitioner.
27 In conclusion, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that, for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Orders dated
th th
11 February, 2022 and 8 June, 2022 ought to be quashed and set aside.
28 On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 vehemently opposed the granting of any reliefs
in the present Petition. He made various submissions by relying on the
th
Affidavit in Reply of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 dated 12 September, 2024
th
and Affidavit in Reply of Respondent No.1 dated 9 October, 2024.
29 The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6
submitted that the State of Maharashtra had declared the allotment of the
said flat/ house by a way of a Lottery System. The State Government set
st
the eligibility criteria as a cut off date of 1 January, 1982, according to
st
which a mill worker who was employed on or after 1 January, 1982 was
eligible for allotment by way of a lottery system. He further pointed out
th
that a letter dated 15 June, 2012, was issued by the State of Maharashtra
S.R.JOSHI 8 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
to the Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of MHADA thereby
st
clarifying the eligibility criteria, with a cut-off date of 1 January, 1982,
for allotment of house to mill workers i.e. the mill worker should be
st
employed with the Century Mills on 1 January, 1982 or thereafter.
30 The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6
submitted that, in view of these directions, an advertisement was
th
published on 9 May, 2026 regarding the allotment of houses to workers
of six mills, including Century Mills. The Petitioner’s husband submitted
his application along with necessary Affidavit and Indemnity Bonds.
Subsequently, the said flat was allotted to the Petitioner’s husband. He
submitted that actual and physical possession of the said flat was handed
th
over to the Petitioner’s husband on 7 July, 2019. The learned Counsel
for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 further submitted that MHADA Office had
received a letter from the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer of MHADA
wherein it was mentioned that a complaint was received against the
Petitioner’s husband. The complaint alleged that he was an employee of
the Mumbai Port Trust as on 1981, and, therefore, as of the cut-off date of
st
1 January, 1982, he was not an employee of Century Mills and, therefore,
was not eligible/ entitled to the allotment of the said flat by the MHADA.
31 The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 stated that,
on the basis of the aforesaid letter, an internal enquiry was conducted by
MHADA and accordingly a Report was prepared. It was revealed from the
th
enquiry Report dated 11 February, 2022 that the Petitioner’s husband
was ineligible for allotment of the said flat.
S.R.JOSHI 9 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
32 The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 thereafter
submitted that various opportunities were given to the Petitioner’s
husband to appear for a hearing and submit necessary documents to show
st
that he was employed with Century Mills as on 1 January, 1982. He
submitted that, after several opportunities were given to the Petitioner’s
th
husband to attend the hearing, at the hearing held on 27 May, 2022,
Vinayak A. Thorwat, the son of the Petitioner’s husband remained present
for the hearing. On perusal of the documents submitted by him on behalf
of the Petitioner’s husband, it was revealed that the Petitioner’s husband
st
was not an employee of Century Mills on or after the cut-off date of 1
th
January, 1982. As a result, Order dated 11 February, 2022 was upheld on
th
8 June, 2022.
33 The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 further
submitted that, pursuant to the disqualification Order, the amount
received from the Petitioner’s husband was returned to him vide a Cheque
which was sent through Professional Courier by the Accounts Department
of MHADA. He further submitted that the eviction proceeding was carried
th
out on 14 March, 2023 and possession of the flat was taken back by
MHADA.
34 The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 also relied on
th th
Minutes of Meetings held on 4 August, 2011 and 4 October, 2011
st
wherein it was clearly recorded that the cut-off date should be 1 January,
1982. These meetings were attended by various Ministers and Secretaries
th
of the State Government. The meeting of 4 October, 2011 was also
attended by representatives of various Mill Workers’ Unions.
S.R.JOSHI 10 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
35 Further, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6
submitted that, for all the aforesaid reasons, the Petition should be
dismissed. However, he stated that Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were ready to
return the sum of Rs.9,50,000/- paid by the Petitioner’s husband to the
Petitioner.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:-
36 The first submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
th th
is that the Orders dated 11 February, 2022 and 8 June, 2022 have been
passed without giving a proper hearing to the Petitioner’s husband and,
therefore, are in violation of the principles of natural justice. I am unable
to accept the said submission. Although, it is true that the Order dated
th
11 February, 2022 disqualifying the Petitioner’s husband was passed
without giving any hearing to the Petitioner’s husband, thereafter,
subsequently, various opportunities were given by the Respondents to the
Petitioner’s husband to present his case and demonstrate that he was
qualified for the Housing Scheme by being a Mill Worker employed by
st
Century Mills as on 1 January, 1982 or thereafter. After remaining absent
for certain hearings, the Petitioner’s husband’s son Vinayak A. Thorwat
th
finally remained present at the hearing held on 27 May, 2022 and
submitted documents, including the Provident Fund Receipt of Century
Mills for the year 1979-1980. However, the documents produced on
behalf of the Petitioner’s husband by the Petitioner’s son clearly showed
that the Petitioner’s husband was not an employee with Century Mills as
st
on 1 January, 1982 and, therefore, he was liable to be disqualified in
respect of the said flat. These facts show that the Petitioner’s husband had
S.R.JOSHI 11 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
been given ample opportunity to present his case and, only thereafter, the
th
Order dated 8 June, 2022 was passed. Thereafter, various letters were
issued to the Petitioner’s husband to vacate the said flat, and finally
Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 had to take forceful possession of the said flat
from the Petitioner’s husband. In my view, therefore, in the aforesaid
circumstances, there is no violation of the principles of natural justice on
behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
37 The next submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
rd
is that the Government Circular dated 3 August, 2012 prescribes a
qualification of only 240 days of continuous employment in Century Mills
for being eligible for a house in the Housing Scheme and that the
Petitioner’s husband met with the said qualification as he was employed in
Century Mills from April, 1973 to March, 1981. It is the submission of the
learned Counsel for the Petitioner that, in light of the same, the
Petitioner’s husband could not have been evicted from the said flat.
38 I am unable to accept this submission of the learned Counsel
th
for the Petitioner. The Minutes of Meeting held on 4 August, 2011, where
Ministers, Party Group Leaders of the Legislative Assembly and Legislative
Council and Secretaries were present, show that a decision was taken that
st
the cut-off date for the Housing Scheme should be 1 January, 1982. At
th
the meeting held on 4 October, 2011 where Ministers, Secretaries and
representatives of Mill Workers’ Unions were present, the decision
st
regarding the cut-off date being 1 January, 1982 was again confirmed.
This clearly shows that one of the qualifications for being eligible for the
Housing Scheme was that the mill worker should be employed with
S.R.JOSHI 12 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
st
Century Mills on 1 January, 1982 or thereafter.
st
39 Further, by a letter dated 1 June, 2012, MHADA had once
st
again stated that the cut-off date shall be 1 January, 1982. The same was
th
reiterated in the letter dated 15 June, 2012 issued by MHADA.
40 Further, it is very important to note that the First Intimation
th
Letter dated 25 July, 2016, which was issued to the Petitioner’s husband,
clearly stated that the eligibility criteria was that the Mill Workers should
st
have been employed as a mill worker on 1 January, 1982 in Century Mills
and that he should be permanently employed. The said letter further
states that if he is working continuously for 240 days, he would be
deemed to have been permanently employed. The said First Intimation
Letter, which was accepted by the Petitioner’s husband, therefore, also
st
clearly lays down the cut-off date as 1 January, 1982. For all these
reasons, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, that the
eligibility criteria was only of being employed continuously for 240 days,
cannot be accepted.
41 The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that
after allotting the said flat to the Petitioner’s husband, the Respondents
could not have taken it away, also cannot be accepted. The Petitioner’s
st
husband was aware that the cut-off date was 1 January, 1982 as the
th
same has been clearly mentioned in the First Intimation Letter dated 25
July, 2016, which has been received by the Petitioner’s husband, and
which has been produced by the Petitioner in the present proceedings.
S.R.JOSHI 13 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
42 Despite being made aware of the said eligibility criteria of cut
st
off date of 1 January, 1982, the Petitioner’s husband took possession of
the said flat and paid Rs.9,50,000/-. For these reasons, there cannot be
any equity in favour of the Petitioner’s husband, and the Petitioner’s
husband is correctly disqualified and evicted from the said flat.
43 As far as the submission of the learned Counsel for the
Petitioner that, on the basis of obtaining this flat, the Petitioner’s husband
sold the house in the village, is concerned, the same is not even
mentioned in the Petition.
44 Be that as it may, even in the Petition, the Petitioner has not
produced any proof to show that any house in the village had been sold by
the Petitioner’s husband after getting the said flat in the Housing Lottery.
Therefore, the said contention of the Petitioner cannot be accepted.
45 In my view, in the light of the aforesaid, the present Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
46 Further, as far as the sum of Rs.9,50,000/- paid by the
Petitioner’s husband is concerned, the Respondents have offered to return
the same to the Petitioner. Even otherwise, since the Petitioner’s husband
has been held to be ineligible for getting the said flat, Respondent No.2 is
required to return the said sum of Rs.9,50,000/- to the Petitioner with
th
simple interest, at the rate of 12% p.a., from 14 March, 2023 (the date
when possession of the said flat was taken back from the Petitioner) till
the date of payment/ realization.
S.R.JOSHI 14 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::
15-WP-4146-2024.doc
47 For all the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order:-
(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged;
(ii) Respondent No.2 to return to the Petitioner a sum of Rs.9,50,000/-
(Rupees Nine lakhs fifty thousand only) with simple interest, at the
th
rate of 12% p.a., from 14 March, 2023 (the date of eviction) till
the payment/ realization, within a period of four weeks from the
date of uploading of this order;
(iii) In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as
to costs.
(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA,J.)
S.R.JOSHI 15 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2026 15:33:26 :::