JUDGMENT - KAKADE P.V., J.:---The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to seek directions from respondents 1 and 2 to hold that they are entitled only to 5% of the total number of 44 tenements in the scheme which is sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and not 10% of the tenements in the light of the judgment delivered by the Honble Supreme Court and also to seek directions for disposal of the First No. B-14 since it has not been taken up by the Government nominees during the last seven years. 2.We have heard Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. However, affidavit in reply has been filed by Nayab Tahsildar V.U. Zole from the office of the Additional Collector and the competent authority Pune Urban Agglomeration, Pune, on behalf of respondent No. 2. 3.The petitioner is a promoter and builder. The construction has been made by the petitioner on the property bearing CTS No. 2217 Sub-Plot No. 124 situated at Bopodi, Tal., Havel Dist., Pune. Said land belongs to one Smt. Malathi Vinayak Bhide and other person and it has been declared as an excess land under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976. An application was made under the provisions of section 21(1) of the said Act by the concerned land holder. Scheme No. 552 was framed by the respondents. The office of the Additional Collector and the Competent Authority Agglomeration, Pune, sanctioned the scheme on 30-1-1984. According to the scheme, 10% of the dwelling units shall be reserved for sale at the rate of Rs. 130/- per sq. ft. of plinth area to the allotees as nominated by the Government. Total number of the tenements which were to be constructed on the said property was 44 tenements. Therefore, 10% thereof comes to 4.4 i.e. round about 4 tenements. Out of the said 4 tenements, 2 were already given to the Government allotees and the said allotees already occupied the said flat and there is no dispute in that regard. The dispute only remains regarding fourth flat, namely, the tenement bearing No. B-14 on the said property. The said property in the said scheme framed by the respondents was described as C-14 instead of B-14. The dispute only remains regarding fourth flat, namely, the tenement bearing No. B-14 on the said property. The said property in the said scheme framed by the respondents was described as C-14 instead of B-14. On 19-6-1985, the Housing and the Special Assistant Department, Mantralaya, Bombay had made the allotment of the said flat from the Government Nominee Quota in favour of a person who was working as District Judge at the relevant time. Said nominee on 1-7-1986 wrote a letter to the Secretary praying for renewal/change of the allotment, therefore, by letter dated 8-11-1989 the respondents informed the said nominee that since he had not taken the possession of the flat for a period of four years, the allotment regarding the aforesaid flat in his favour stood cancelled. In the meantime, on 7-1-1986, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Additional Collector and informed that the correct number of the flat is B-14 and not C-14 as mentioned in the relevant records. Thereafter the allotment was also made of the said flat in favour a person who was sitting M.L.A. at the relevant time. It was made in the year 1994, however, the said M.L.A. also did not make payment nor took the possession of the flat inspite of repeated communications to him by the petitioner. Resultantly, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has incurred expenditure and though the tenement is ready and though the respondent No. 1 has tried to make the allotment in favour of the nominee, the nominees have not taken the possession and the petitioners capital is blocked. In the light of these aspects present petitions is filed by the petitioner inter alia submitting that in view of the Supreme Court decision in (M/s. Shantistar Builder v. Narayan Khimlal others)1, reported in 1990(1) S.C.C. 520 , it should be held that respondent No. 2 is entitled only to 5% of the total number of 44 tenements in the scheme which is sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and not 10% of the tenements and consequently the present tenement should be handed over to the petitioner for sale of his choice. 4.Mr. 4.Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the prayer made in the petition is on the basis that the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Shantistar Builders case (supra) is having retrospective effect and, therefore, the quota of Government nominees in the scheme formulated by the respondents should be held as only 5% and not 10% as stipulated in Clause 8 of the said scheme. In this regard, critical perusal of the reasoning adopted by the Apex Court in the said case is necessary. Para 18 of the said judgment reads thus : "18. Government nominees contemplated under the Code must belong to weaker sections of the society and shall also be subjected to the Rule of one family one flat. The number of Government nominees should not exceed 5 per cent of the total accommodation available in any scheme." (emphasis supplied). It must be noted that the Supreme Court in the said case was examining the scope of sections 20 and 21 of the U.L.C. Act and in doing so it thought it fit to provide working guidelines to the State Government while framing the schemes in this regard. Therefore, this aspect by necessary implication, would show that intention of the Supreme Court was to lay down the guidelines for future implementation and not for retrospective effect. Moreover, the very phraseology as quoted above, would show that the application of the impugned directions would be prospective and not retrospective. Moreover, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2629 of 1992 as well as Writ Petition No. 685 of 1993 (of which copies are annexed to the petition) it has been held that Supreme Courts decision in M/s. Shantistars (supra) case would have prospective and not retrospective effect so far as quota of Government nominees is concerned. Therefore, it must be held that the petitioner cannot rely upon the ratio laid down by the Shantistars case (supra) to hold that 5% quota of Government nominees would be applicable with retrospective effect. Evidently, the scheme of the petitioner was framed in the year 1984, whereas the Shantistars ruling of the Supreme Court has come in the year 1990 and, therefore, there is no question of applicability of the ratio laid down in the Shantistars case of the present petitioner regarding the percentage of the quota of Government nominees. Evidently, the scheme of the petitioner was framed in the year 1984, whereas the Shantistars ruling of the Supreme Court has come in the year 1990 and, therefore, there is no question of applicability of the ratio laid down in the Shantistars case of the present petitioner regarding the percentage of the quota of Government nominees. 5.At the same time, it must be noted that the Supreme Court categorically examined the nature and scope of the provisions of sections 20 and 21 of the U.L.C. Act in order to determine the real ambit of the term "weaker section", because the scheme framed by the State Government stipulates that particular percentage of dwelling units shall be reserved for sale to the Government nominees belonging to weaker section. In Shantistars case (supra) as a working guidelines, it was directed the "means test" for identifying "weaker section of the society" was adopted and it was held that income of the family of the applicant must not exceed Rs. 18,000/- to come within the meaning of the term to qualify for allotment. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that when the scheme of the petitioner was sanctioned in the year 1984, the relevant Rule of the State Government was, income of Rs. 1500/- per annum or below the said amount to qualify for allotment of said quota for weaker section of the society. If this was the position, then the allotments made by the respondents earlier to District Judge and then to the sitting M.L.A. was nothing but the mockery of the said Rule. Section 21 of the U.L.C. Act specifically emphasizes upon weaker section of the people. The expression "weaker section" also finds place in Article 46 of the Constitution. However, that expression has not been defined either in the Constitution or in the Act itself. Both Article 46 and section 21, intended that all the citizens of India belonging to the weaker sections, including the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, should have the benefit. Since in recent years the value of urban land has gone up sky high, it has become impossible for any member of the weaker sections to have residential accommodation anywhere and much less in urban areas. Since in recent years the value of urban land has gone up sky high, it has become impossible for any member of the weaker sections to have residential accommodation anywhere and much less in urban areas. Since a reasonable residence is an indispensable necessity for fulfilling the constitutional goal in the matter of development of a man and should be taken as included in life in Article 21, greater social control is called for and exemptions granted under sections 20 and 21 should have to be appropriately monitored to have the fullest benefit of the beneficial legislation. Therefore, if this is the aim and object of the impugned provision, to reserve particular quota for the weaker section of the community in the dwelling houses, the practice of the respondents to allot such tenements to the persons who are working as District Judge or a sitting M.L.A. has to be deprecated. Be that as it may, it must be noted that the fourth flat in the scheme of the petitioner has to go to the member of the weaker section, albeit within a reasonable time and if it is not done by the respondents, then the petitioner need not suffer any longer because his investment in the said flat is locked up since the year 1984 without his fault. 6.In view of this position, the respondents are directed to grant the remaining one flat in the said scheme of the petitioner to a person who is established to be economically backward i.e. belonging to weaker section of the community within six months from the date of this order. If such allotment is not made within said time, the petitioner shall be at liberty to allot it or dealt with it as he desires. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of with directions. ----