The Bombay High Court noted that an unsuccessful or postponed reconstruction cannot violate the fundamental rights of senior residents regarding their access to shelter. An elderly woman who was a member of Navin Manju Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. filed a writ case with the court in 2019. She claimed that her flat had been abandoned in 2019 and that the society would later seize ownership of the property to redevelop it.
Judge G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, who make up a Division Bench, stated, “Prima-facie we find substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner that Senior Citizens cannot be left to suffer to be roofless at the last stage of their life on any delayed or impossible redevelopment. The Court, in these circumstances, would not be powerless to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so that the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Senior Citizens in respect of their entitlement of a shelter in their twilight years cannot be taken away under the garb of a failed or delayed redevelopment making them to irreparably suffer. They need to be protected.”
Jayashree Dilip Dholi, the petitioner, made a personal appearance, and Addl. G.P. M.P. Jadhav represented the State. The petitioner argued in this case that although the respondent, M/s. Square One Realty, had been chosen by the Society to carry out redevelopment, the developer’s owner was unable to proceed with the project due to many legal actions and significant recoveries against him. She claimed that because of her advanced age, she had been without a roof for the previous four years and that Article 21 of the Constitution, when read in conjunction with Article 14, had infringed her fundamental rights. She said that she would have the backing of six other senior persons who were also suffering because the bulk of society seemed to be associated with the Managing Committee, which is against the law.
Given the aforementioned facts, the High Court declared, “… before we proceed to pass any orders, Respondents are required to be heard. Accordingly, issue notice on the Petition to the Respondents.” Consequently, it asked the AGP to notify the Municipal Corporation’s advocates and instructed the Law Officer of the Municipal Corporation to assign an advocate to represent the interested respondents in the proceedings. The High Court postponed the case as a result.