http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2653 of 2007

PETITIONER: Subhadra Ankush Kshirsagar & Ors

RESPONDENT: State of Maharashtra & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/05/2007

BENCH: TARUN CHATTERJEE & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2653 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 3559 of 2006)

P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.

                1.              Leave granted.

2.              This appeal by the petitioners in Writ Petition  No.  1408 of 2005 on the file of the High Court of Bombay  challenges the interim order passed by the High Court  vacating the ad interim order for maintenance of status  quo granted earlier by that Court.  The appellants claim to  be the wives of police personnel to whom chawls had been  allotted as their quarters in Worli.  According to the  appellants, the State Government had taken a decision to  transfer the tenancy rights of Government employees in  occupation of chawls to their wives and in that context the  wives of retired police personnel could not be evicted from  the service quarters allotted to the policemen.  In that writ  petition, the appellants had claimed an interim order  restraining the respondents from evicting the family  members of the retired police personnel and of those  police personnel who are not in service.  The contesting  respondents resisted the application by pointing out that  the police personnel are allotted service quarters without  rent as part of their service conditions and their  occupation is governed by Section 31 of the Bombay Police  Act.  It was also contended that considering the nature of  the service to be rendered by police personnel employed in  the city and the special duties assigned to them, it was  necessary for the personnel to reside within the city so as  to enable them to attend to emergent calls of duty as and  when needed and the available quarters with the police  department was much less than the quarters that were  needed and it was in that context that those who are not  entitled to continue to occupy were sought to be evicted.   It was also pointed out that the Government order relied  on did not apply to the buildings in question and that the  buildings in question are under the control of the police  department, and that no case has been made out for any  relief to the appellants and in any event no ground existed  for granting any interim order as sought for by them.  

3.              The Division Bench of the High Court, on a  consideration of the relevant materials, in the light of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

pleas raised by the contesting respondents found no  reason to maintain the ad interim order of status quo  earlier granted and hence vacated the order protecting the  rights of the appellants, in case the premises were sought  to be commercially exploited by the Government.  It is this  order refusing interim relief to the appellants as sought for  by them that is challenged in this appeal.

4.              Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the  order marked P-1 and certain other subsequent orders to  contend that the appellants have a prima facie right as  wives of retired police personnel to have the tenancy  transferred to them.  But, in the light of the specific plea  put forward in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the  contesting respondents and the facts detailed therein with  particular reference to paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof, we are  of the view that the High Court was justified in holding  that the appellants have not made out a prima facie case  for grant of an interim relief to them as sought for by the  appellants.  In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the  High Court was justified in refusing interim relief to the  appellants except as indicated in the order under  challenge.  5.              We have desisted from discussing the questions  argued before us further, lest it prejudices the parties in  the final disposal of the writ petition filed by the  appellants before the High Court.  Suffice it to say that we  are satisfied that no ground is made out for interference  with the order passed by the High Court.  

6.              We therefore confirm that order and dismiss this  appeal.  The order of status quo granted by this Court on  24.2.2006 will stand vacated.  However, we may request  the High Court to dispose of the writ petition now pending  before it at an early date preferably within three months  from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.