ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.C.Chaudhari for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Kanva Antani for respondent State and learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Pandya for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through video conference. 2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs: “[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition; [B] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondent authorities to follow the circular No. BJT/102104/1642/TH-1 dated 11.02.2016 issued by the State of Gujarat and the Public Private Partnership Policy for Affordable Housing framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation [Housing Section]; and further be pleased to allot new tenament/shops to the petitioners and similarly situated occupants of the housing scheme on their original plot only; [C] During pendency of admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to follow the circular No. BJT/102014/1642/TH-1 dated 11.02.2016 issued by the State of Gujarat and the Public Private Partnership Policy for Affordable Housing framed by the Government of India, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation [Housing Section]; and further be pleased to allot new tenaments/shops to the petitioners and similarly situated occupants of the housing scheme on their original plot only; [D] Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The petitioners were residing at Revenue Survey No. 20 which is under the town planning scheme Surat No. 28 [Althan- Bhatar](Preliminary Scheme) which is divided into two final plots No. 107 and 116. The petitioner No.1 was residing in Final Plot No. 116 and petitioner No.2 was residing in Final Plot No. 107. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari for the petitioners submitted that as per the re-development scheme of the State Government which is promulgated as per circular dated 11.02.2016, the petitioners are entitled to reconstruct houses on their original place as per clause 6.4 of the said circular. 5. Learned advocate Mr. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari for the petitioners submitted that as per the re-development scheme of the State Government which is promulgated as per circular dated 11.02.2016, the petitioners are entitled to reconstruct houses on their original place as per clause 6.4 of the said circular. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari submitted that the respondent-Corporation has sanctioned the plan of constructing the new building on final plot No. 116 and final plot No. 107 which are located at a prime locality in Surat and is given to the developer to construct commercial buildings and therefore, being aggrieved by such action of the respondent-Corporation, the petitioners have preferred this petition. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari further submitted that the respondents are bound to follow the circular dated 11.02.2016 in letter and spirit and therefore, any deviation from such circular which stipulates to provide the residential accommodations to the petitioners at their original place is required to be quashed and set aside and the respondent- Corporation is required to be directed to provide accommodation to the petitioners at the place where they were originally situated. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari would further submit that the petitioners have paid the amount for hire purchase of their accommodation way back in the year 1980 and they are the sole owner of the premises which were sought to be redeveloped pursuant to the circular dated 11.02.2016. It was therefore, submitted that in the contract agreement executed between the developer and the respondent-Municipal Corporation which refers to the Redevelopment and Public House Scheme, 2016, the petitioners are entitled to get the accommodation on the respective original place. Mr. Chaudhari invited attention of the Court that the sanctioned plan at Annexure F [page 68] for construction of the new residential accommodation to be provided to the petitioners is situated only in final plot No. 116 and therefore, such plan sanctioned by the respondent-Corporation is contrary to the Scheme 2016. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Pandya for respondent-Corporation submitted that the petitioners have prayed for allotment of new tenaments/shops on their original plots only as per the Scheme 2016 and accordingly, respondent Corporation has initiated re-development of 'Althan Tenaments' strictly in accordance with the provisions of circular dated 11.02.2016. Mr. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Kaushal Pandya for respondent-Corporation submitted that the petitioners have prayed for allotment of new tenaments/shops on their original plots only as per the Scheme 2016 and accordingly, respondent Corporation has initiated re-development of 'Althan Tenaments' strictly in accordance with the provisions of circular dated 11.02.2016. Mr. Pandya also raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the petition in nature of representative capacity of the petitioners as the same is filed and represented in the capacity of the petitioners on behalf of occupants of tenaments, as it would amount to a petition in the nature of public interest litigation. 9. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya would submit that the tenaments, which were in possession of the petitioners on hire purchase basis, were built on Revenue Survey No. 20 in the year 1978 and at that point of time, there was no town planning scheme. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya submitted that subsequently, the Town Planning Scheme Surat No. 28 was sanctioned by the State Government and Revenue Survey No. 20 was given original plot No. 20. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya relied upon the form 'F' of the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme sanctioned by the State Government at Annexure R/1 at page 92 and pointed out that original plot No. 20 was bifurcated in final plot No. 116 admeasuring 20655 sq.mtr and final plot No. 107 admeasuring 23541 of sq.mtr. It was therefore submitted by Mr. Pandya that the plan sanctioned by Municipal Corporation is on the original Plot No. 20 where the residential accommodation of the petitioners were located before demolition so as to reconstruct new houses for them. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya also submitted that in the Scheme 2016 there is no reference to the fact that the land which was used for residential purpose cannot be used for the commercial purpose as against the submission of the petitioners whereby reliance was placed on clause No.5.2 of the Scheme 2016 which stipulates that the developer has to provide for the area which was used for commercial purpose which can be sold to the beneficiaries. According to Mr. Pandya, therefore, the area which was used for commercial purpose cannot be reduced under the Scheme of 2016. 10. Learned advocate Mr. According to Mr. Pandya, therefore, the area which was used for commercial purpose cannot be reduced under the Scheme of 2016. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya, relied upon the following averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent-Corporation: “(8) I state that, e-tender on-line notice was issued and the tenders were invited from the reputed developer for development of group housing facilities at Althan Tenements on Final Plot No.s. 107 and 116, Town Planning Scheme No. 28 (Althan) on 'PPP Basis' under the Re-development of Public Housing Scheme, 2016. The said e-tender notice along with tender etc. dated 16.09.2016 are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R4 collectively to this Affidavit. It is submitted that on 20.01.2017 the tender of one Siddhi Developers and Builder, Ahmedabad, was accepted by the Surat Municipal Corporation vide its Resolution No. 92 of 2017. The copy of said Resolution No. 92 of 2017 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R5 to this Affidavit. I state that pursuant to the aforesaid Resolution, Letter of Intent (LOI) and Work Order were given to the Siddhi Developers and Builder by the Corporation on 10.02.2017 and 16.02.2017. I state that the estimated cost of the said scheme is Rs. 134 Crores and the re-development is also required to be completed within a period of three years. (10) The scheme is also launched because of the fact that the allottee can get new house instead of such old houses. (11) With the aforesaid public interest and background of the matter, now I would like to place some other important and vital facts to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Court, which are as under: i. I state that the General Board of the Surat Municipal Corporation vide its Resolution No. 348 dated 18.01.1972 have resolved to sale the houses on hire purchase agreement and under the said Development Policy the first priority was given to the persons who have lost the houses and then the same is to be allotted to the persons who have lost their life either in Flood or became homeless on account of natural calamity. It was also resolved and qualified that such persons should not have annual income more than Rs. 6000/-. The copy of the said Resolution dated 18.01.1972 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R6 to this Affidavit. ii. It was also resolved and qualified that such persons should not have annual income more than Rs. 6000/-. The copy of the said Resolution dated 18.01.1972 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R6 to this Affidavit. ii. I state that thereafter, the Corporation vide its Resolution No. 308 dated 02.06.1978 have also decided certain conditions for allotment of the houses. The copy of said Resolution No. 308 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R7 to this Affidavit. iii. I state that thereafter the Corporation have resolved to provide houses to the reserved category person vide its Resolution No. 1127 dated 21.12.1978 and accordingly certain tenements have been alloted as per the reservation policy. The Hire Purchase Agreement was also sanctioned. The copy of Higher Purchase Agreement is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R8 to this Affidavit. iv. I state that as per condition No. 8 of the said Hire Purchase Agreement, the tenement holder was not entitled to make any changes in the structure without obtaining permissions from the Corporation and they cannot put up or change the nature of the construction contrary to the sanctioned plan. However, there is a complete violation of the said condition No. 8 by the present petitioners. I state that the copy of the sanctioned plan is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R9 to this Affidavit. I state that as per the said sanctioned plant, the approved carpet area of dwelling unit is 25.33 sq.mtrs i.e. 272.57 sq.ft, which includes the following amenities:- Room Measurement (in ft.) Sq.ft Living Room 10'.6” x 12'.0” 126.00 Kitchen 6'.0”x 8'.3” 49.50 Bathroom 3'.3”x 5'.0” 16.45 Toilet 3'.3”x3'.0” 9.75 Balcony 3'.6”x12'.0” 42.00 Balcony 3'.6”x8'.3” 28.87 Total 272.57 sq.ft 272.57 / 10.76 25.33 sq.mtr v. I state that as per the sanctioned plan under the re-development of Public Housing Scheme-2016 and particularly, in view of clause No. 3.1.b.II, the concerned owner of dwelling units is entitled for allotment of 35.46 sq.mtrs carpet area which is 140 percent of existing approved carpet area which is 25.33 sq.mtrs. The details of the approved carpet area under the above referred scheme and the amenities as provided in the said sanctioned plan is as under: Room Measurement (in Mtrs.) Sq.Mtr Living Room 3.44 x 3.74 12.87 Kitchen 2.12x 2.22 4.71 Wash 2.35x 1.19 2.80 Bedroom 3.35 x 3.29 11.02 Bathroom 1.52 x 22 1.85 Toilet 1.16 x 1.07 1.24 Passage 1.20 x 1.07 1.29 Total 35.78 sq.mtr vi. Thus, the individual dwelling units owner is getting approximately about 35.78 sq.mtrs carpet area which is as such more than what they are entitled under the redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme-2016. I state that as per the redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme- 2016 dated 11.02.2016 and more particularly, in view of clause No. 3.1.b.II, it is specifically provided that the maximum aggregated carpet are may be 140 percent of existing approved carpet area of the dwelling units or 30 sq.mtr carpet area, which ever is higher. The petitioner has misled this Hon'ble Court and misrepresented this Hon'ble Court by excluding “approved carpet area”. The petitioner has represented before this Hon'ble Court stating the “Existing carpet are”, instead of “Existing approved carpet area”. Thus, the petitioner has misled this Hon'ble Court and has not come with clean hands before this Hon'ble Court, which disentitle him for any relief. viii. I state that as per the approved plan of Althan Tenements, an owner of dwelling unit was alloted 25.33 sq.mtrs carpet area. Under the new Redevelopment Public Housing Scheme, each dwelling unit of 35.78 sq.mtrs. Carpet area. Thus, the allotment is in accordance to Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme- 2016. ix. I state that under clause 4.2.z of the said scheme, the existing housing society/association has to pass resolution with an approval to the minimum 60% its members for redevelopment; whereas, in the present case, 98% of the members of association has given the approval through their association by passing the Resolution. A copy of the said Resolution is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R10 to this Affidavit. I state that the measurement of carpet area has been carried out in presence of the President of the Association, Committee Members, office bearers of association, officers of the Corporation, consultants and the developers and thereafter, the existing carpet area of the existing units have been freezed. A copy of the relevant sketch is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R11 to this Affidavit. A copy of the relevant sketch is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R11 to this Affidavit. I also would like to give the description of the same, which is as under:- Sr.No. Description Size Area in Sq.mtr. 1 Room 3.65x3.27 1.94 2 Kitchen 2.55x3.02 7.70 3 W.C. 0.91x0.94 0.86 4 Bath 0.91x 1.47 1.34 5 verandah 3.65x0.91 3.32 6 Cup board 0.45x0.91 0.41 Total 25.57 x. I state that actual measurement of the carpet are was carried out and it was found that the carpet area of dwelling was 25.57 sq.mtrs. Whereas, as per the approved paln, 25.33 sq.mtrs. Existing approved carpet area was sanctioned. Further more it is to state that being all apartment type structures all the units remains of same size. I state that 98% of the members of association have agreed that they are having 25.57 sq.mtrs. Of the carpet are and considering the same they have been proposed to allot 35.78 sq.mtrs of the carpet area, which is approximately about 41.25% more than what they were actually holding. (12) I state that thereafter in view of the fact that the present tenements at Althan are required to be Redeveloped under Redeveloped of Public Housing Scheme and, therefore, the developer, Siddhi Developers and Builders has initiated the procedure of vacating the dwelling units and also demolished around 672 number of dwelling units out of 1296 dwelling units which are otherwise in a very dilapidated condition. (13) I state that the estimated cost of the present scheme is Rs. 134 crores and the entire project is required to be completed within a period of 3 years. It is in the interest of public at large that the Honourable Court may forthwith reject the petition of the petitioners and may not grant any the interim relief. (14) I state that under the scheme the concerned allottee will get the houses as per the scheme and no prejudice is going to be caused to any allottee. (15) I state that the petitioners have deliberately and willfully suppressed all the material and vital facts from this Honourable Court. The petitioners have not come with clean hand before this Honourable Court which dis-entitle them for any relief. (16) I state that the petitioners themselves have violated the terms and conditions of the allotment and as such the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the premise in question. The petitioners have not come with clean hand before this Honourable Court which dis-entitle them for any relief. (16) I state that the petitioners themselves have violated the terms and conditions of the allotment and as such the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the premise in question. (17) I submit that there is complete breach of conditions of Hire Purchase Agreement and, therefore, also the petitioners are not entitled for any relief.” 11. Relying upon the aforesaid averments it was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Pandya that the petition may not be entertained as the respondent-Corporation has strictly followed Scheme 2016 in the interest of public at large including the petitioners. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya also relied upon the order passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 18007 of 2017 dated 11.07.2019 with regard to the grievance raised by the petitioners in the said petition for not providing the carpet area enjoyed by such petitioners and less carpet area alloted to such petitioners to which they are entitled to in the very same Scheme of 2016 and submitted that the said petition was dismissed as it was brought on record that the beneficiaries of the Scheme 2016 were in fact granted 40% more carpet area than what they were enjoying in their old residential units. 13. Learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari in rejoinder submitted that the respondent-Corporation could not have relied upon the original Plot No. 20 more particularly, when said plot is now bifurcated under town planning in two final plot Nos. 107 and 116 and therefore, as per the clause No. 6.4 of the Scheme 2016, the petitioners are entitled to the residential accommodation on the plot on which they were having their original residence. It was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Chaudhari that respondent-Corporation has tried to see that the final Plot No. 107 is kept vacant for commercial purpose depriving the petitioners, the residential accommodation on their original place. It was therefore, pointed out that such action of the respondent Corporation is contrary to the Scheme 2016. Mr. Chaudhari submitted that Special Civil Application No. 18007 of 2017 filed before this Court was with regard to allotting 40% carpet are which was required to be given under the Scheme 2016. However, after filing of the petition, the same was given and therefore, the petition was dismissed. Mr. Chaudhari submitted that Special Civil Application No. 18007 of 2017 filed before this Court was with regard to allotting 40% carpet are which was required to be given under the Scheme 2016. However, after filing of the petition, the same was given and therefore, the petition was dismissed. It was therefore, submitted by Mr. Chaudhari that in the facts of the case that the petitioners are not given the residential accommodation on the plot on which they were originally situated the petition is required to be allowed as prayed for. 14. Having heard learned advocate for the respective parties and having gone through the materials on record, it emerges that the petitioners were having their residential units on the revenue Survey No. 20 in the year 1978 which was given original plot No. 20 in the town planning scheme and on sanction of the preliminary town planning scheme, the original Plot No. 20 was bifurcated in two final plots No. 107 and 116. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners should be given the residential accommodation on both the plots is not tenable in law as it is not in consonance with the Scheme 2016 in view of the fact that as per the Scheme 2016, there are about 1296 units to be constructed for re-development of the residential units and accordingly, the plan was sanctioned by the respondent-Corporation for construction of multi storied towers for accommodating all the occupiers who were having residential units on original Plot No. 20. 15. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that there is violation of clause No. 6.4 of the Scheme 2016 is also not tenable as the petitioners were occupiers of revenue Survey No. 20 which was later on bifurcated in final plot No. 107 and 116 in the town planning scheme due to passing of 15 mtr wide road in original plot No. 20. In view of such sanction of the preliminary town planning scheme of the State Government, it cannot be said that as the entire re-development project is situated in final Plot No. 116, there is violation of clause No. 6.4 of the Scheme 2016 which reads as under: “6.4 There shall be a development of existing houses and beneficiaries shall be rehabilitated at original place.” 16. As per the Scheme 2016, the petitioners are required to be alloted residential unit in a newly constructed housing society on the basis of public draw. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to get the premises at the place where original premises were situated but they are entitled to the premises at the place in the newly constructed premises as per the sanctioned plan on the basis of the draw which neither the petitioners not the respondent-Corporation are aware that which the unit would be allotted to the petitioners. In such circumstances, the entire basis of preferring of this petition is not commensurating to the Scheme 2016 as it is not the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are not given any residential unit/shop which they were having prior to coming into force of the Scheme 2016. Moreover, as emerges from the record, the petitioners are getting monthly rent of Rs. 5400/- from the developer which is evident from the resolution dated 20.01.2017 placed on record at Annexure R-4 [page 116]. 17. The Surat Municipal Corporation has also granted development permission dated 30.07.2018 in the name of one Mehulbhai Baldevbhai Patel, Partner of Siddhi Developers & Builders which prescribes for following conditions: “Conditions: (1) Revised Permission for Integrated Group Housing Facility Under Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme-2016 is granted as per the plans attached herewith. (2) Laminated Copy of the Sanctioned plan shall have to be displayed/made available at the site. (3) Illegal Construction against the sanctioned plan shall not be regularized in any case. (4) Certificate of Registration from the competent Authority under provisions of the Building and other Construction workers (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Act, 1996 Shall have to be submitted to the Surat Municipal Corporation. (5) Environmental Clearance Certificate should be submitted before construction of builtup are more than 20000 sq.mt. (6) This Permission is issued to the Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme-2016 from the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development, Government of Gujarat.” 18. From the above development permission also it is clear that Integrated Group Housing Facility Under Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme-2016 is sanctioned for Final Plot Nos. 106 and 117 of Revenue Survey No. 20. 19. (6) This Permission is issued to the Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme-2016 from the Gujarat Town Planning and Urban Development, Government of Gujarat.” 18. From the above development permission also it is clear that Integrated Group Housing Facility Under Redevelopment of Public Housing Scheme-2016 is sanctioned for Final Plot Nos. 106 and 117 of Revenue Survey No. 20. 19. Thus taking into consideration the above undisputed facts, the prayers made in the petition are not required to be granted as respondent-Corporation has implemented housing Scheme 2016 as per the conditions mentioned therein and there is no deviation from such Scheme 2016 as alleged to have been made by the petitioners. 20. In such circumstances, the petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.