The authorities implementing the welfare legislation / scheme to safeguard the interest of marginalised people, are required to adopt a pragmatic approach and be flexible, the Bombay High Court has observed. The HC has quashed an order dated October 15, 2019 passed by the Deputy Chief Officer, Dharavi Redevelopment Project/Mill, MHADA cancelling the allotment of a room in the Prakash Cotton Mill Compound in Lower Parel to a 76-year-old mill worker who lost his livelihood in 1982 during the textile mill strike.
The HC was hearing a petition by Shamrav Kamble, who shifted to his native village in Kolhapur after losing his livelihood and home, challenging MHADA’s order cancelling allotment of his room as he failed to deposit Rs9.5 lakh by June 2018 and sought extension to make the payment.
Kamble was declared eligible for the allotment of the room following a lottery conducted on May 9, 2016, under amended Regulation 58 of the Development Control Regulations (DCR) of 1991, which provided residential premises for mill workers on redeveloped mill lands. A Provisional Offer Letter (POL) dated May 3, 2018, directed Kamble to pay Rs9.5 lakh, with 10% of the amount due by June 16, 2018, and the remaining 90% by August 15, 2018. An interest rate of 11% was to be charged for any delays. Kamble, citing financial hardships, requested extensions multiple times, but these were denied, prompting him to approach the High Court.
The court noted that Kamble, despite facing significant financial difficulties, managed to collect the required amount by August 21, 2024. Following HC order, MHADA accepted the payment and granted him possession of the premises, subject to further court orders. MHADA, however, said he was liable to pay interest amount of Rs.5,42,557.
The court observed that Kamble, a senior citizen, struggled to pay even the initial 10% deposit due to his dire financial condition, highlighting the challenges faced by many mill workers affected by the 1982 strike. The HC highlighted that the market rate of the premises allotted to him is more than Rs1 crore. “In these circumstances, it is significant to note that the Petitioner who was mill worker and presently aged 76 years has faced tremendous difficulties while collecting the amount of Rs9,50,000 and even 10% of the said amount i.e. Rs. 95,000/ within the time as granted by POL dated 03.05.2018,” Justice Madhav Jamdar said.
The High Court emphasised the need for authorities implementing welfare schemes to adopt a pragmatic and flexible approach, particularly when dealing with marginalised individuals like mill workers who suffered due to the strike. The court noted that the regulations under DCR 1991 and DCPR 2034 were intended to rehabilitate mill workers by providing them with alternate housing on redeveloped mill lands. Given Kamble’s age and financial challenges, the court ruled that MHADA should have been more sensitive and accommodating.
The HC quashed the October 15, 2019, cancellation order, granting Kamble an additional four months to pay an outstanding interest amount of Rs. 5,42,557. The court directed MHADA to complete the necessary formalities for allotting the premises to Kamble once the interest payment is made, thereby upholding the welfare intent behind the housing scheme for displaced mill workers.
