NANDA GULABRAO ERANDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY

                                                            66-WP-2801-2025.doc


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

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 2801 OF 2025
Nanda Gulabrao Erande                      ]
Age 68 Years,                              ]
W/o Gulabrao Erande, Mu. Maldevwadi,       ]
P.O. Bhuinj, Satara                        ]
Maharashtra 415515.                        ].....Petitioner
             Versus
1. State of Maharashtra                         ]
Through The Secretary,                          ]
Department of Housing                           ]
Government of Maharashtra,                      ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 021.                     ]
                                                ]
2. The Additional Chief Secretary (Home) ]
State of Maharashtra                            ]
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 021.                     ]
                                                ]
3. Commissioner of Police
                                                ]
Greater Mumbai, Crawford Market,
                                                ]
Mumbai.
                                                ]
4.    Deputy    Commissioner      of    Police, ]
Mukhyalay-2 Officer of Commissioner of ]
Police, Mumbai.                                 ]
                                                ]
5. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development ]
Authority,                                      ]
Through its Chief Executive Officer Kalanagar, ]
Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051.                     ].....Respondents
                                .....
Ms. Revati Desai i/b Mr. Chetan Mali, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Milind More, Addl. G. P., for the Respondent-State.
Ms. Sayali Apte i/b Mr. P. G. Lad, for the Respondent No.5-MHADA.
                                   ..…



Manisha                                                                  1/13
             Digitally signed by
MANISHA      MANISHA
             BALKRISHNA
BALKRISHNA   TALEKAR
TALEKAR      Date: 2026.08.20
             18:26:03 +0530
                                                           66-WP-2801-2025.doc



                  CORAM                 : M. S. KARNIK &
                                          SANDESH D.PATIL, JJ.
                  RESERVED ON           : 11th AUGUST 2026
                  PRONOUNCED ON : 18th AUGUST 2026

JUDGMENT [PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] :-

1.        By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution      of   India,   the   Petitioner   is   challenging      the

communication dated 16th February, 2022 of the Respondent No.4 to

the extent it rejects the Petitioner’s request to be considered eligible

under the Government Resolution (G.R. for short) dated 18th August,

2021 for allotment of room in the Bombay Development Department

Chawl (B.D.D. Chawl for short).


2.        The case of the Petitioner is that, her husband was in the

service of the Police Department. By virtue of the service of the

Petitioner’s husband, he was allotted Room no.74 in B.D.D Chawl

No.9 on 1st January, 1978 as service quarters (the said premises for

short). In the year 1994, the State vide G.R. dated 11 th October, 1994

granted benefit of tenancy to the government servants residing in

B.D.D Chawl and the tenancy of the rooms which were allotted to

them by the State Government as service quarters came to be directly



Manisha                                                                 2/13
                                                          66-WP-2801-2025.doc


transferred in their respective names. The benefits of the G.R. dated

11th October, 1994 was gradually extended to the several employees

in the service and even the retired employees working in Class II,

Class III and Class IV posts in different Department of State of

Maharashtra. The same was however, not extended to the Police

Personnel residing in the B.D.D. Chawls and hence, the Petitioner

filed Writ Petition in this Court for extension of the benefit to the

Petitioner’s husband.


3.        The husband of the Petitioner retired from the service on 31st

May, 2009. The Petitioner’s late husband was asked to vacate the

premises in the year 2010 by a letter dated 7 th January, 2010. The

Petitioner’s husband therefore, filed Writ Petition No.876 of 2011

inter alia contending that the benefits of the 1994 G.R. be made

applicable to them in respect of grant of benefit of tenancy. The

matter was pending before this Court. Ultimately on 11 th September,

2015, this Court dismissed the said Petition. The late husband of the

Petitioner thereafter vacated the premises on 31st October, 2015.


4.        The Respondent No.1 issued a G.R. on 30 th March, 2016

whereby it decided to develop B.D.D Chawls. By the said G.R., the


Manisha                                                                3/13
                                                        66-WP-2801-2025.doc


Respondent No.5-Maharashtra Housing and Area Development

Authority (MHADA for short) was appointed as a Nodal Agency. On

2nd October, 2020, the husband of the Petitioner passed away. The

issue in respect of the tenancy rights of the police personnel was

pending. Hence, a committee was constituted to look into the issues

of the police personnel residing in B.D.D. Chawl.


5.        The Government ultimately passed a Resolution dated 18 th

August, 2021 granting benefit of ownership rights to all police

officers (retired or dead) residing in the premises in B.D.D. Chawls

till 1st January, 2011. Such Police Officers were to be allotted

premises in the redeveloped B.D.D. Chawls on ownership basis.


6.        The Petitioner’s son on behalf of the Petitioner addressed a

letter dated 1st November, 2021 to the Respondent No.4 inter alia

requesting to be considered eligible as per the G.R. dated 18 th

August, 2021. The Respondent No.3 vide a communication dated 16 th

October, 2022 rejected the request of the Petitioner’s son on the

ground that the Petitioner’s late husband had vacated the premises

before passing of the said G.R. dated 18th August, 2021 and the said

premises has been allotted to another employee. The Petitioner


Manisha                                                              4/13
                                                         66-WP-2801-2025.doc


therefore, has approached this Court impugning the communication-

Order dated 16th February, 2022 passed by the Respondent No.4-

Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mukhyalay-2, Mumbai.


7.        An affidavit is tendered by the learned A.G.P. which was

affirmed by Mr. Vijaykumar H. Panhale for and on behalf of the

Respondent Nos.1 to 4. In the said affidavit, it is admitted that, the

husband of the Petitioner was allotted an accommodation in B.D.D.

Chawl No.9, Room No.74 pursuant to the G.R. dated 11 th October,

1994. The affidavit further notes about Writ Petition No.876 of 2011

filed by the deceased-husband of the Petitioner before the Court

seeking tenancy rights for the B.D.D. Chawl accommodation. The

bone of contention of the affidavit is that the G.R. dated 18 th August,

2021 stipulates that the police personnel (whether currently serving,

retired or deceased) who were residing in B.D.D. Chawl service

quarters as on 1st January, 2011 could be allotted a redeveloped unit

admeasuring at about 500 sq. ft. on ownership basis under the

B.D.D. Chawl redevelopment project. However, the said scheme is

not applicable to the husband of the Petitioner.




Manisha                                                               5/13
                                                           66-WP-2801-2025.doc


8.        We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. We

have perused the Petition, the affidavit-in-reply and the impugned

letter dated 16th February, 2022.


9.        In the impugned letter, the ground for rejection of the claim of

the Petitioner is that, the predecessor of the Petitioner had vacated

the premises in October, 2015. It is further stated that the G.R. by

virtue of which the right to reside in the premises were conferred on

the police personnel who were residing in the said premises on 1 st

January, 2011 was issued on 18th August, 2021. It is further

mentioned that, the predecessor of the Petitioner having surrendered

the premises before the issuance of G.R. dated 18 th August, 2021, the

Petitioner is not entitled to any premises in the B.D.D. Chawl.


10.       A careful reading of G.R. dated 18th August, 2021 indicates

that, the police personnel who were residing till 1 st January, 2011 in

the B.D.D Chawl by virtue of their employment (presently in

employment, retired, legal heirs of the deceased personnel) would be

entitled for 500 sq. ft. of constructed Gala on ownership basis. The

G.R. dated 18th August, 2021 does not mention that the person

should be residing in the premises as on 18 th August, 2021. By the


Manisha                                                                 6/13
                                                          66-WP-2801-2025.doc


impugned Order, an interpretation is tried to be given that, in order

to get the benefit of G.R. dated 18 th August, 2021, the person should

be residing in the premises of the B.D.D. Chawl as on the day of

issuance of the G.R. dated 18th August, 2021. The G.R. does not

stipulate a condition that the person must be residing in the premises

on the date of issuance of the G.R. itself.


11.       As a matter of fact, the G.R. proceeds to give a preface as to

under what circumstances the Committee of nine members was

formed to look into the demands of the housing of the police

personnel. It mentions that the police officers are required to work

day in and out and answer all sort of exigencies. One of the objective

of the G.R. is to give the premises to the legal heirs of the deceased

police personnel. In these circumstances, it would be too

preposterous to contend that the police personnel should have been

living in the B.D.D. Chawl as on 18th August, 2021 in order to make

them or their family members entitled to the benefits of the G.R.

dated 18th August, 2021.


12.       The G.R. should speak for itself. The G.R. dated 18 th August,

2021 will have to be read in its entirety. The Authority must interpret


Manisha                                                                7/13
                                                           66-WP-2801-2025.doc


the G.R. dated 18th August, 2021 as it is without adding their own

interpretation contrary to the intention of the G.R. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the Judgment of Sisir Kumar Mohanty v. State of

Orissa1, has made some significant observations in the context of

interpretation of resolutions. Paragraph 10 reads thus;


          “10. Adverting to the rival contentions, it has been a
          definite assertion for the appellants herein that by virtue
          of the resolution noticed above, the police ministerial
          officers serving under the IG/DGP, Orissa constitute a
          separate cadre within the general cadre of police officers
          and as such claim that police ministerial officers holding
          the post of Junior Clerks in the district offices besides
          being entitled to promotion in the district offices to the
          ranks of Senior Clerk and Junior Accountant, which are
          posts equivalent to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspectors
          are entitled to promotion to the post of Senior Assistants
          in the office of the IG/DIG and in the same manner Head
          Clerks and Senior Assistants of district offices having the
          rank of SI of Police are entitled to promotion to the rank
          of Section Officer in the rank of Inspector of Police in the
          office of IG/DIG. It has been contended that the
          language itself having reference to paragraph 2 of the
          resolution cannot but depict a clear intent to create a
          single cadre and not two, irrespective of the offices in
          which they have to work and as such no artificial barrier
          can be introduced between the selfsame officers. The
          submissions advanced no doubt require a serious
          consideration as to the true interpretation of the


1 (2002) 9 SCC 219

Manisha                                                                  8/13
                                                           66-WP-2801-2025.doc


           resolution — no addition or deletion can ever be said to
           be permissible as otherwise an order which happens to
           be bad at the beginning may through the process of
           affidavits get validated by additional grounds later
           brought out : as a proposition of law, there cannot be any
           manner of doubt in regard thereto. The effect of the
           resolution shall have to be judged on the basis of the
           document itself and no other external aid is permissible.
           A careful scrutiny of paragraph 2 of the resolution dated
           7-9-1974 (as noticed hereinbefore) and in particular the
           user of the language along with “the existing police
           ministerial officers will form a separate cadre within the
           general cadre of the Orissa Police and will be designated
           as Police Officers (Ministerial)” makes the situation
           abundantly clear as regards the creation of a separate
           cadre called “Police Officers (Ministerial)”. ”

                                       (emphasis supplied by us)

13.       The G.R. dated 18th August, 2021 only specifies that the police

personnel should be residing in the B.D.D. Chawl as on 1st January,

2011 to be eligible for the benefit and nothing else. In this case,

admittedly the late husband of the Petitioner was residing in the

B.D.D Chawl till 2015. The learned A.G.P would argue that the

husband of the Petitioner retired in the year 2009 however, he was

staying in the premises till 2015 only because he along with some

other police personnel filed a Writ Petition and therefore, the

residence of the husband of the Petitioner in the premises in question


Manisha                                                                 9/13
                                                         66-WP-2801-2025.doc


was only because of pendency of the Writ Petition. We are afraid that

this submission of the learned A.G.P. can only be stated to be

rejected. There is nothing in the G.R. which disqualifies the

Petitioner’s husband from the benefits of the G.R. dated 18 th August,

2021 only because the husband of the Petitioner was residing by

virtue of the pendency of Writ Petition No.876 of 2011 in this Court.

Such is not the purport of the G.R.


14.       Let us test the contention of the Respondents that the

personnel/ legal heir must be actually residing in the premises as on

the date of the G.R. i.e. 18 th August, 2021 to get the benefit from

another angle. The G.R. itself provides for a cut off date as 1 st

January, 2011 for granting the benefit of allotment of premises on

ownership basis. Thus, the benefit of ownership allotment in

redeveloped B.D.D. chawl is available to all police officers (retired or

dead) residing in the B.D.D. Chawls till 1st January, 2011.


15.       Take a case of a police personnel who has retired on 1 st

January, 2011. To get the benefit he must actually continue to occupy

the premises as on 18th August, 2021. Therefore, if someone can hold

on to the premises till 18th August, 2021, almost 10 years since his


Manisha                                                             10/13
                                                          66-WP-2801-2025.doc


retirement, he gets the benefit. But a retired person though residing

in the premises as on 1st January, 2011 cannot hold on to the

premises and is forcibly evicted before 18th August, 2021, does not

get the benefit of G.R. dated 18th August, 2021.


16.       Post retirement, the personnel is supposed to vacate the

premises within a reasonable time. The argument of learned A.G.P.

that the personnel must be found occupying the premises almost 10

years after his retirement is not only fallacious but encourages

conferring benefits on those who continue to occupy the premises for

long period contrary to the Rules.


17.       The G.R. does not make any distinction between a person who

has vacated the premises after 1st January, 2011 or the one who is

occupying the premises as on 18th August, 2021. To expect a person

who has retired on 1st January, 2011 to be actually occupying the

premises on 18th August, 2021 is not only a fundamentally flawed

approach but is also clearly discriminatory.


18.       There is a absolutely no logic to discriminate between retired

employees occupying the premises on 1st January, 2011 for the



Manisha                                                              11/13
                                                            66-WP-2801-2025.doc


purpose of applicability of G.R. dated 18th August, 2021 only on the

ground that one set of retired employees continue to occupy the

premises on the date of issuance of the G.R. dated 18 th August, 2021.

The plain reading of the G.R. reveals the true intention that the

police personnel (retired or dead) must be in occupation of the

premises on 1st January, 2011.


19.       The police personnel (retired or dead) occupying the premises

on 1st January, 2011 constitutes a class. To deprive the Petitioner on

the ground that she is not occupying the premises on 18 th August,

2021 amounts to hostile discrimination. The G.R. dated 18 th August,

2021, as discussed already, is clear and unambiguous. The stand of

the Respondents denying the benefit of the G.R. dated 18 th August,

2021 is irrational and discriminatory.


20.       The impugned communication dated 16th February, 2022 is

contrary to the G.R. dated 18th August, 2021 and hence, needs to be

quashed and set aside. Hence, the following Order:



                                   ORDER


          (i)   Writ Petition No.2801 of 2025 is allowed.


Manisha                                                                12/13
                                                             66-WP-2801-2025.doc


          (ii)   The impugned communication dated 16th February, 2022

          is quashed and set aside and the Petitioner is held eligible for

          the benefit of the G.R. dated 18th August, 2021.


          (iii) The Respondents are further directed to forthwith allot

          suitable tenament to the Petitioner in accordance with G.R.

          dated 18th August, 2021.


          (iv) Accordingly, Writ Petition No.2801 of 2025 is disposed of.




(SANDESH D.PATIL, J.)                               (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




Manisha                                                                 13/13