Vijay Nana Sawant vs Commissioner Of Police And 2 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 1305 Bom

                                             1                              WP.178/2017(8)

 mnm

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                               WRIT PETITION NO. 178 OF 2017

 Shri Vijay Nana Sawant                                           ...Petitioner
       Vs.
 Commissioner of Police for 
 Greater Mumbai and Ors.                                          ...Respondents

 Mr. Aditya Pratap, Advocate for the Petitioner 
 Mr. A.L. Patki, Addl. G.P for the State Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
 Mr. R.S. Khadapkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3

                                 CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &
                                             M.S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATED :30TH MARCH, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent matter is

taken up for final hearing.

2 Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned A.G.P for

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for Respondent No.3.

3. The Petitioner is working as Police Head Constable with the

Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai. The case of the Petitioner is

2 WP.178/2017(8)

that he had applied for police residential quarter in A/15, Shivshankar

C.H.S. Ltd., Mulund (E), Mumbai. The said residential quarter was

allotted to Respondent No.3 by order dated 1 st July, 2015. According to

the Petitioner, allotment of the quarter to Respondent No.3 was illegal,

hence, he preferred O.A. No.774 of 2015 before the Maharashtra

Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. The said O.A came to be dismissed

by order dated 15th June, 2016. Hence, this Petition.

4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as per rules,

these quarters are meant to be allotted to the Police personnel from the

rank of Constable to that of the Deputy Commissioner and above. In

support thereof, he relied on Rule 3 framed by Respondent No.1 ie., The

Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai for allotment of quarters at

Mumbai. He submitted that nowhere it is mentioned that Government

quarters under the control of the Respondent No.1 can be allotted to

ministerial staff working in the Police Department. He pointed out that

the Respondent No.3 is working as Stenographer and she is not a police

personnel. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also pointed out the

allotment letter dated 1st July, 2015 wherein it is mentioned that

Respondent No.3 is a Mantralaya employee.

3 WP.178/2017(8)

5. The Petitioner had given a representation on 15th January, 2015

for allotment of quarter A/15 or A/29, Shivshankar C.H.S. Ltd., Mulund

(E) Mumbai. The Petitioner had earlier submitted two representations

dated 11th March, 2014 and 10th October, 2014 for allotment of police

residential quarter. By order dated 22 nd September, 2014 the Petitioner

was allotted a quarter but he did not accept the same. Again by order

dated 31st March, 2015 the Petitioner was admittedly allotted

residential quarter No.C-406, Himgiri Building, Mulund Police Quarters,

Mulund (W). However, the said quarter was not occupied by the

Petitioner and the Petitioner submitted a representation on 13 th April,

2015 for cancellation of the allotment. Thus the Petitioner did not

accept the quarters allotted to him and instead on 21 st April, 2015 the

Petitioner again submitted an application for allotment of flat A/15,

Shivshankar C.H.S. Ltd., Mulund (E) which was vacant. However, the

said quarter was allotted to Respondent No.3 who according to the

Petitioner, was not entitled to the same.

6. As far as the contention of the Petitioner is concerned that

Respondent No.3 belongs to ministerial staff and was not a police

personnel, it is seen that it is an admitted fact that she is working as

4 WP.178/2017(8)

Stenographer in the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police Head

Quarters-2. Thus there is no doubt that Respondent No.3 belong to the

establishment of Respondent No.1 ie., Commissioner of Police, Mumbai.

Rule 6 (viii) states as under:

"6. Criteria for allotment of Government quarters:

(viii) Allotment of service quarters as a special case: On medical grounds or under extraordinary conditions, 10 percent of the service quarters shall be allotted by the Committee with the approval of Hon'ble Commissioner of Police, Greater Mumbai".

7. Respondent No.3 has been allotted quarter on medical ground,

Thus under Rule 6(viii) of the Rules dated 1 st July, 2015, the

Respondent No.1 Commissioner of Police can allot Police quarters on

medical or humanitarian ground as a special case, to the staff working

in his office, who may not be Police Personnel.

8. We would also like to point out that the Petitioner is a Police

Hawaldar, hence he is eligible to quarters which are of 351 to 450 sq. ft.

in size. The quarters which are being sought by the Petitioner but have

5 WP.178/2017(8)

been allotted to Respondent No.3 is about 300 sq. ft. in size. Rule 6

(vii) states that Police officers/policemen must demand only those

quarters to which they are entitled. Thus it is seen that the Petitioner

was not entitled to the said quarter and as per Rule 3 of Rules dated 2 nd

February, 2015 (called Allotment Rules) the Petitioner is entitled to a

quarter having area of 351 to 450 sq. ft. As per Rule 6(vii), the request

for a quarter smaller in area than the entitlement cannot be considered.

Thus the Police Hawaldar would not be entitled to be allotted A/15

which is 300 sq. ft. and only Police Constable and Police Naik are

eligible to get this quarter. The Petitioner being a Police Havaldar was

not entitled to the said quarter.

9. Admittedly the Petitioner owns a house in Mulund (E) the carpet

area of which is 300 sq. ft. He was allotted quarters on two occasions

ie., by order dated 22nd September, 2014 and 31st March, 2015.

However, he did not accept the same and he is insisting for quarter

A/15 to which he is not entitled. As stated earlier quarter A/15 could

only be allotted to Police Naik or Police Constable and the Petitioner is

of the rank of Police Havaldar, hence, he is not entitled to the said

quarter. The Petitioner cannot claim / insist on allotment of a particular

6 WP.178/2017(8)

quarter. He has no legal claim to be allotted quarter A/15. The

Tribunal has considered all these aspects and in our opinion, rightly

dismissed the O.A. We see no reason to interfere in the said order,

hence Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.

              (M.S. KARNIK, J.)                     (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)