{"id":271585,"date":"2010-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-12-20T15:23:12","modified_gmt":"2016-12-20T09:53:12","slug":"authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Authority vs Commission & Ors on 17 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Authority vs Commission & Ors on 17 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: R. S. Dalvi<\/div>\n
                                   1\n\nMNM\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n                                                \n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                         APPELLATE SIDE\n\n                 WRIT PETITION NO.10453 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                               \nMaharashtra Housing & Area Development\n\n\n\n\n                                      \nAuthority                                            ...Petitioner\n    Vs.\nThe Maharashtra State Human Rights\n                          \nCommission & Ors.                                    ...Respondents\n\nMr.G.W.Mattos, Advocate for the Petitioner\n                         \nMs. Sai M. Dalvi, Respondent No.2 in person\nMrs. Neha Bhide B Panel for Respondent No.3\n           \n\n\n                                CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.\n        \n\n\n\n          Date of  reserving the Judgment :    27TH JANUARY, 2010\n          Date of pronouncing the Judgment :17TH FEBRUARY, 2010\n\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    1.Rule.   Rule is made returnable forthwith.\n<\/p>\n
    2.Respondent No.2 is heard in person and her affidavit in
\n      reply is considered.\n<\/p>\n
    3.The Petitioner has challenged the order of the learned
\n      Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai dated<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                              2<\/span><\/p>\n
      22nd October 2009 directing the applicant which is a
\n      Statutory      Authority         for       Housing    Development               in      the<\/p>\n
      State of Maharashtra, to allot a residential flat of a
\n      certain restriction in a certain area at the specified<\/p>\n
      price within 3 months of the date of hearing.                                           The
\n      Petitioner(MHADA) challenges the jurisdiction of the<\/p>\n
      Human Rights Commission to issue an order relating to
\n      the proprietary right of citizens.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    4.MHADA    published         an     advertisement            for       sale         of      16\n      tenements      of    one    of\n                                  ig    its       properties        being         Siddharth\n<\/pre>\n
      Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai in about November 2001.
\n      The     Respondent         No.2        amongst       others         applied             for<\/p>\n
      tenements in pursuance of the advertisement. The Deputy
\n      Chief Officer of MHADA informed the Respondent No.2<\/p>\n
      under his letter dated 1st October 2003 that she would
\n      be    informed       whether      she       could     be    admitted            in      the<\/p>\n
      proposed      Co-operative         Housing       Society         and      that         fact
\n      would    be    communicated            to   her.     The     Respondent                No.2<\/p>\n
      contends      that    MHADA       is    bound    to    act       upon       the        said
\n      letter and allot to her one residential premises upon
\n      her application.\n<\/p>\n
    5.However, earlier on 25th November 1998 one Udka Co-
\n      operative Housing Society (proposed) of working women
\n      had also applied for allotment of tenements.                                MHADA had
\n      passed a resolution No.5469 on 25th June 1999 to allot<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
     16   residential          tenements       and     8       non-residential
\n     tenements    to    Udka    Society.         On   9th     March         2000        the<\/p>\n
     Government        of      Maharashtra        confirmed              the          said
\n     resolution. On 16th May 2000 an offer letter was issued<\/p>\n
     by MHADA to Udka Society.               Scrutiny of the members was
\n     done.   The Society was found ineligible for allotment.\n<\/p>\n
     On 21st July 2000 Government of Maharashtra modified
\n     its earlier directions and directed MHADA                         to allot 12
\n     tenements to the Society and to allot 4 tenements to<\/p>\n
     one Ashok Paradkar and others instead of other members
\n     of Udka Society.        igThat decision was challenged by Udka
\n     Society in Writ Petition No.5283\/2000, in which Udka
\n     Society claimed allotment of 16 tenements to it.                                     As<\/p>\n
     per the Government letter dated 28th January 2004 and
\n     order came to be passed by this Court on 16th April<\/p>\n
     2004 directing MHADA to allot 16 tenements to Udka
\n     Society within 8 weeks of the order.\n<\/p>\n
    6.16 flats have been allotted to the members of Udka<\/p>\n
     Society in place of the 16 applications received by
\n     MHADA   inter      alia     from       Respondent       No.2.         Hence          no
\n     allotment has been made by MHADA to Respondent No.2 or
\n     any other applicants in respect of the advertisement<\/p>\n
     which was published in November 2001 for tenements at
\n     Siddharth    Nagar,        Goregoan        (West),         Mumbai.             MHADA
\n     offered to return the earnest money deposits of all the
\n     16 applicants since it was constrained to allot flats<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
      to members at Udka Society as per the High Court order.
\n      The Respondent No.2 has refused to take the earnest<\/p>\n
      money deposited.        She claims the tenement instead. She
\n      claims that though she along with others had applied<\/p>\n
      pursuant   to     the   advertisement       published            in      November
\n      2007, the flats have not been allotted to her, but have<\/p>\n
      been allotted to Udka Society instead which she claims
\n      as illegal.\n<\/p>\n
    7.It may be mentioned that the Respondent No.2 claims
\n      contractual rights.      igHer right is in respect of what
\n      she    considers    a   contract      between      MHADA         and       herself
\n      under which she claims that MHADA was obliged to allot<\/p>\n
      to her a flat.\n<\/p>\n
    8.It may be mentioned that there is no contract between
\n      the parties. MHADA had only published an advertisement.\n<\/p>\n
      That is not an offer made by MHADA for sale of any
\n      flat. It was an invitation by MHADA to the public to<\/p>\n
      make offer for purchase of the flat. The Respondent No.
\n      2, along with others, made their respective offers.
\n      MHADA is required to construct the premises and upon
\n      such    construction     allot       the   flats.      These         flats         are<\/p>\n
      allotted by lots. It is only when lots are drawn and a
\n      letter of allotment is issued that the offer of the
\n      party    making    an    application        is     accepted             and        the
\n      contract is complete.\n<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                       5<\/span><\/p>\n
    9.A   contract   is   made   by       way   of   a     proposal            and       an<\/p>\n
      acceptance as per Section 2(a) and (b) and 7 of the
\n      Indian Contract Act<\/a>, 1872 which run thus:\n<\/p>\n
           2. Interpretation     clause. – In this Act the
\n           following words and expressions are used in the<\/p>\n
           following senses, unless a contrary intention
\n           appears from the context:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (a) When one person signifies to another his<\/p>\n
               willingness to do or to abstain from doing
\n               anything, with a view to obtaining the assent<\/p>\n
               of that other to such act or abstinence, he is
\n               said to make a proposal;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (b) When the person to whom the proposal is
\n               made   signifies  his   assent   thereto, the
\n               proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal,
\n               when accepted, becomes a promise;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (c)…..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (d)…..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           7. Acceptance must be absolute. – In order to<\/p>\n
           convert a proposal into a promise the acceptance
\n           must-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (1) be absolute and unqualified;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (2) be expressed in some usual and reasonable
\n               manner, unless the proposal prescribes the
\n               manner in which it is to be accepted. If the
\n               proposal prescribes a manner in which it is to
\n               be accepted, and the acceptance is not made in
\n               such   manner,  the   proposer  may,within   a
\n               reasonable time after the acceptance is<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                            6<\/span><\/p>\n
                 communicated to him, insist that his proposal
\n                 shall be accepted in the prescribed manner,
\n                 and not otherwise; but, if he fails to do so,<\/p>\n
                 he accepts the acceptance.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      No allotment is shown to be made by MHADA.                             The letter
\n      of    MHADA    dated    1st   October       2003       merely       informs           the<\/p>\n
      Respondent No.2 that she would be informed in future
\n      whether       she   could     be    admitted       in    the       Co-operative
\n      Society where she had applied for allotment of a flat.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      That letter, therefore, does not conclude\/complete the
\n      contract.      It     doesig  not    grant   any        legal       rights          upon
\n      Respondent No.2. It does not oblige MHADA to allot the
\n      flat to her. It does not verify the assent of MHADA to<\/p>\n
      the    application       of    Respondent         No.2.       It      is      neither
\n      absolute,       nor    unqualified.         It     is    not       accepted             by<\/p>\n
      allotment of any flat as called upon by Respondent No.\n<\/p>\n
      2.<\/p>\n
    10.Besides the contract\/offer if any is frustrated and<\/p>\n
      rendered impossible of performance by MHADA consequent
\n      upon the High Court order being passed. It would fall
\n      squarely within the second part of Section 56<\/a> of the
\n      Indian    Contract       Act,       1872.        The    relevant            part        of<\/p>\n
      Section 56<\/a> runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
               56. Agreement to do impossible act.-An agreement
\n               to do an act impossible in itself is void.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
              Contract    to  do   act   afterwards   becoming
\n              impossible or unlawful.- A contract to do an act<\/p>\n
              which, after the contract is made, becomes
\n              impossible, or, by reason of some event which<\/p>\n
              the   promisor could   not prevent,    unlawful,
\n              becomes void when the act becomes impossible or
\n              unlawful.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    11.The contract, if any, of MHADA with Respondent No.2
\n      became impossible of performance upon the High Court
\n      order     passed        in     respect          of    the       same          building<\/p>\n
      constructed        by     ig MHADA       after       such       contract              with
\n      Respondent No.2 was made which MHADA could not prevent.\n<\/p>\n
    12.The Respondent No.2 though claiming rights under that
\n      contract did not sue in a Civil Court for enforcement
\n      of her right. She instead filed the Petition before the<\/p>\n
      Human   Rights     Commission.            She    claims       that        her       human<\/p>\n
      rights are effected.\n<\/p>\n
    13. Human    Rights        as    defined      in       Section        2(d)<\/a>        of      the<\/p>\n
      Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (the Act) means:\n<\/p>\n
                  The rights relating to life, liberty,<\/p>\n
          equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed
\n          by   the   Constitution   or  embodied   in   the
\n          International Covenants and enforceable by Courts
\n          in India .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The Universal Declaration of Human Rights set out the<\/p>\n
                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
      rights of all humans qua their residence and property
\n      thus:\n<\/p>\n
               Article 3:<\/a> Everyone has the right to life,
\n               liberty and security of a person.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Article 13(1):<\/a> Everyone has the right to
\n               freedom of movement and residence within the
\n               borders of each state.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Article 17(1):<\/a> Everyone has the right to own
\n               property alone as well as an in association
\n               with others.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               Article 17(2):<\/a> No one shall                  be     arbitrarily
\n               deprived of his property.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    14.The Respondent No.2 eloquently argued in person and<\/p>\n
      urged that the right to obtain a residence by a women
\n      such as her, who is a spinster, upon performance of her<\/p>\n
      part of the contract by payment of the consideration
\n      required for the allotment, is a human right because if<\/p>\n
      the   tenement   is   not   allotted   to     her       she       would         be
\n      shelterless and her right to life as well as dignity as<\/p>\n
      a human being would be adversely effected. It is on
\n      this premise that the order impugned by MHADA as being
\n      without jurisdiction has been passed by the State Human
\n      Rights Commission under the Protection of Human                         Rights<\/p>\n
      Act<\/a>, 1993 directing MHADA to give her one tenement as
\n      aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
    15.Mr. Mattos, on behalf of MHADA, equally                        eloquently<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
      urged that the order of MHADA is without jurisdiction
\n      and suffers from a gross error of law in as much as<\/p>\n
      proprietary rights do not fall within the right to life
\n      enshrined      in    the   Constitution             under         Article           21<\/a>      and<\/p>\n
      hence     cannot        come      within            the       purview             of        the
\n      recommendations         that      could        be    passed           by      the       Human<\/p>\n
      Rights Commission for infringement of Human Rights of
\n      Citizens.\n<\/p>\n
    16.Mr.Mattos would contend that property rights cannot
\n      fall within the purview of Human Rights.\n<\/p>\n
                                  ig                                             He referred
\n      to the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
\n      Shobha Vitthal Kolte & Ors. 2006(1) Bom.C.R. 468.                                           The<\/p>\n
      challenge by the Government to the order of a Human
\n      Rights    Commission,           upon       a   complaint            by      a     Teacher,<\/p>\n
      recommending her approval by the Education Department
\n      was set aside as an order without jurisdiction.                                       It was<\/p>\n
      observed that the commission could intervene in case
\n      there    were       violation     of       human      rights            to      life        and<\/p>\n
      livelihood and the right to appointment as a teacher
\n      was not even Fundamental Right. It was further observed
\n      that     the    right      to    employment           in         the       absence            of
\n      Legislation         guaranteeing           such      employment               cannot          be<\/p>\n
      equated with the right to livelihood. Upon considering
\n      the definition of Human Right under Section 2(d)<\/a> of the
\n      Act, it was held that in a case where upon seeing lack
\n      of educational qualifications and consequently lack of<\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
    eligibility when the services came to be terminated, a
\n    recommendation providing the appointment could not be<\/p>\n
    accepted.     This was so held even though it was observed
\n    that the right to life and livelihood would include the<\/p>\n
    right to receive wages, but the deprivation of the
\n    wages    do   not    effect      the   very    right        of       life        and<\/p>\n
    livelyhood itself.         The test which was considered was
\n    whether the right which was sought to be protected was
\n    a Fundamental Right. Hence in that case it was seen<\/p>\n
    whether right to be appointed could be a Fundamental
\n    Right.    Article 41<\/a> in Chapter-IV of the Constitution of<\/p>\n
    India    laying down the Directive Principles of State
\n    Policy was considered.            Under that Article the State,<\/p>\n
    within    the   limits      of     its    economic          capacity             and
\n    development,        was   enjoined       to   make        provision              for<\/p>\n
    securing the right to work etc.               It was held that the
\n    right    to   employment,        in    the    absence         of       specific<\/p>\n
    legislation, could not be placed on the same footing as
\n    the right to livelihood.           Taking into consideration the<\/p>\n
    Supreme Court judgment in the case of A.I.R. India
\n    Statutory Corporation Vs. United Labour Union, 1997(9)
\n    S.C.C. 377 it was observed that despite the observation
\n    of the Supreme Court in paragraph 21 of that judgment<\/p>\n
    the right to work would become as much as Fundamental
\n    Right to life, but only upon the appointment of the
\n    person. Since appointment per se could not made of any
\n    person except under the procedure established by law<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                      11<\/span><\/p>\n
      which would be under the provisions of a specific law
\n      relating     to   a   specific   employment,        considering               the<\/p>\n
      eligibility of a candidate, it was concluded that the
\n      right to work would become a Fundamental Right where<\/p>\n
      there is a legislation in that behalf.                   Until it fell
\n      within the expression          life    under Article 21<\/a>, would<\/p>\n
      not fall within the definition of human rights as set
\n      out under Section 2(d)<\/a> of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    17.It may at once be mentioned that the right to the
\n      property which was earlier a Fundamental Right under<\/p>\n
      Article 31<\/a> to the Constitution, was omitted therefrom
\n      by the 44th amendment to the Constitution (w.e.f.20th<\/p>\n
      June 1979).\n<\/p>\n
    18.The term     Human    rights itself denotes rights relating
\n      to the aspects enunciated in the definition. Hence it<\/p>\n
      would   be   rights    of    humans    relating     to      their         life,
\n      liberty, equality and dignity as against the rights<\/p>\n
      with regard to their properties.\n<\/p>\n
    19.Such Human Rights relating to life, liberty, dignity
\n      and equality effectively come into play when the act of<\/p>\n
      State   by    virtue    of    any     legislation        or       delegated
\n      legislation is considered: to cite               it was considered
\n      by the Supreme Court in the case of M\/s.Shantistar
\n      Builders Vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame & Ors. (1990) 1<\/p>\n
                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                               12<\/span><\/p>\n
      S.C.C.520 whilst upholding the Urban Land (Ceiling and
\n      Regulation) Act<\/a>, 1976 as a Social legislation thus:\n<\/p>\n
                 The right to life would take within its<\/p>\n
              sweep the right to food, the right to
\n              clothing, the right to decent environment and
\n              a reasonable accommodation to live in. The
\n              difference between the need of an animal and a<\/p>\n
              human being for shelter has to be kept in
\n              view. For the animal it is the bare protection
\n              of the body, for a human being it has to be a
\n              suitable accommodation which would allow him<\/p>\n
              to grow in every aspect   physical, mental and
\n              intellectual.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        ig    The   Constitution   aims   at
\n              ensuring fuller development of every child.
\n              That would be possible only if the child is in
\n              a proper home. It is not necessary that every<\/p>\n
              citizen must be ensured of living in a well-
\n              built comfortable house but a reasonable home
\n              particularly for people in India can even be
\n              mud-built thatched house or a mud-built fire-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              proof accommodation.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   The growing realisation of the disparity
\n              between the increase in the home-less urban
\n              population and lack of corresponding rise in
\n              accommodation led to the passing of the Urban<\/p>\n
              Land    (Ceiling  and   Regulation) Act<\/a>   and
\n              acquisition of vacant sites for purposes of
\n              housing.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    20.This would not apply to individual rights of parties<\/p>\n
      even against the State which require to be effectuated
\n      upon contracts entered into between parties.\n<\/p>\n
    21.Following the case of Shantistar Builders the Supreme<\/p>\n
                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                      13<\/span><\/p>\n
    Court upheld the notification of the Government under
\n    Section 17(1A)<\/a> of the Land Acquisition Act upholding<\/p>\n
    the urgency for grant of residential accommodation to
\n    persons from Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.In<\/p>\n
    the case of Chameli Singh Vs. State of U.P. A.I.R. 1996
\n    S.C.1051 the Supreme Court observed that the right to<\/p>\n
    life included the right to food, clothing and housing.
\n    Therefore State was enjoined to promote with special
\n    care the interest of weaker sections of the society.\n<\/p>\n
    It was held that the right to residence and settlement
\n    was a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(c)<\/a>of the<\/p>\n
    Constitution       and    a    facet    of    the      right         to       life.
\n    Consequently,the planned development by way of massive<\/p>\n
    housing scheme undertaken by the State as its economic
\n    policy was considered. The opportunity and facility to<\/p>\n
    be   provided    by      the   State    to    build     the       houses          was
\n    appraised.      The      infrastructure       necessary            to       enable<\/p>\n
    weaker sections to live and develop as a human being
\n    was cogitated. The requirement of having a property and<\/p>\n
    capacity     for      acquiring        property       was         essentially
\n    considered. The squalid residential environment which
\n    is a constant threat to health and life was required to
\n    be   removed    as    provided    in    the    UN   Centre          for       human<\/p>\n
    settlement by way of a global strategy. Judicial notice
\n    was taken of the condition in which weaker sections
\n    lived.     Following the case of Pahwa Vs. Lt. Governor of
\n    Delhi ((1985)1SCR588: (A.I.R1984(1)SC1721), it was held<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                       14<\/span><\/p>\n
      that the notification issued under Section 17(4)<\/a> of the
\n      Land    Acquisition    Act     would    be     valid      and       could         not<\/p>\n
      interfered     with        because    the     urgency       for       providing
\n      houses to weaker sections was always urgent.                            It being<\/p>\n
      a national problem and a constitutional obligation, it
\n      was observed that the provision for compensation to the<\/p>\n
      persons whose land was acquired for being provided to
\n      weaker    sections     under        Section     23(1)<\/a>        of      the        Land
\n      Acquisition Act was a factor which obligated urgent<\/p>\n
      acquisition.\n<\/p>\n
    22.It can be seen that the enforcement of the right of
\n      residence as a part of the Fundamental or Human Rights<\/p>\n
      can be enforced against the State under legislation or
\n      delegated    legislation       of    the    scheme.       Though          such        a<\/p>\n
      right exists the entire populace cannot claim to be
\n      given    a   flat     or    such     other      residence            from         the<\/p>\n
      government under any contract sought to be entered into
\n      by them.     A right under a contract is a civil right.\n<\/p>\n
      It can be enforced against the other contracting party
\n      whose obligation is set out under the contract. Those
\n      rights are enforceable in civil Courts. Consequently
\n      for all those rights which arise under any contract or<\/p>\n
      a   specific    statutory           provision      can        be        enforced
\n      thereunder in the appropriate forum only.                           It is for
\n      any aberration under State policy, government inaction
\n      or as a residuary provision where no statutory rights<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                                        15<\/span><\/p>\n
      can     be     enforced     though     Civil      Courts           that          the
\n      jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission would come<\/p>\n
      into play.       On individual basis for contractual right
\n      such jurisdiction is not conferred upon Human Rights<\/p>\n
      Commission.\n<\/p>\n
    23.In this case the contractual right is not available to
\n      the Respondent No.2 though she has made an application
\n      for being allotted a flat in MHADA premises since about<\/p>\n
      November 2001.         She has not been allotted any specified
\n      flat. It must be appreciated that there are thousands<\/p>\n
      of applicants for a single premises consequent upon a
\n      single advertisement of MHADA. All applicants do not<\/p>\n
      have any legal rights vested in them by virtue of their
\n      application.          They would be vested with legal rights<\/p>\n
      only    upon    the    issue    of    allotment      letter          when        the
\n      contract      between     the   applicants     and     MHADA         would         be<\/p>\n
      concluded.\n<\/p>\n
    24.Consequently it is seen that the impugned order of the
\n      Human        Rights     Commission      is     completely                without
\n      jurisdiction and is required to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
    25.Hence the Writ Petition succeeds.\n<\/p>\n
    26.Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>
\n                               16<\/span><\/p>\n
    27.The   orders\/recommendations   of    the         Human           Rights<\/p>\n
      Commission dated 22nd October 2009, 18th December 2007
\n      and 31st August 2007 are set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                                       (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)<\/p>\n
                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:37:32 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Authority vs Commission & Ors on 17 February, 2010 Bench: R. S. Dalvi 1 MNM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.10453 OF 2009 Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority …Petitioner Vs. The Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission & Ors. …Respondents Mr.G.W.Mattos, Advocate for the Petitioner […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-271585","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nAuthority vs Commission & Ors on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Authority vs Commission & Ors on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-20T09:53:12+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Authority vs Commission & Ors on 17 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-20T09:53:12+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3031,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Authority vs Commission & Ors on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-20T09:53:12+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Authority vs Commission & Ors on 17 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Authority vs Commission & Ors on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Authority vs Commission & Ors on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-20T09:53:12+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Authority vs Commission & Ors on 17 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-20T09:53:12+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010"},"wordCount":3031,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010","name":"Authority vs Commission & Ors on 17 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-20T09:53:12+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/authority-vs-commission-ors-on-17-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Authority vs Commission & Ors on 17 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271585","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=271585"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/271585\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=271585"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=271585"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=271585"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}