'How Can One Earning Above Rs 6 Lakh Annually Be Low Income Group?' Bombay High Court Questions CIDCO, Stays PMAY Flat Allotments

Observing that the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) has forced a 'competition' between a Mercedes owner and a bicycle owner, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday stayed the allotment of nearly 25,000 flats constructed by CIDCO in Navi Mumbai under the Prime Minister Awas Yojana (Urban) (PMAYU-2.0) scheme, which were meant for the Lower Income Group (LIG) in 2024.A division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Abhay Mantri remarked that the CIDCO, by allowing people earning more than Rs 6 lakh annually, to apply for a house under the LIG category, has only made a 'mockery of the poor' and has only 'aimed' at making these flats, which were meant for the 'poorest of the poor', available for the rich.The bench was 'shocked' to note that the CIDCO had permitted people to apply for the LIG houses under the lottery system, on the conditions that they should not own a 'pucca' house in Navi Mumbai. Even people earning more than Rs 6 lakh annually were allowed to apply for the LIG flats."How can someone earning more than Rs 6 lakhs annually be considered to be falling in a LIG? By this logic, even a person having a lavish house in Mumbai, but does not own a pucca house in Navi Mumbai, can come and apply for a flat in this scheme. You are making a person earning Rs 6 lakh annually to compete with a person earning Rs 6 lakh per hour. Someone coming in a Mercedes would say he does not own a pucca house in Navi Mumbai and thus, would apply under the LIG and end up getting a flat under the lottery system. And possibly someone coming on a bicycle, a genuine needy, may not get a flat because of the lottery? You are compelling these two categories to compete? Is this not a mockery of the poor?" Justice Ghuge remarked. The judges wondered what would be Middle Income Group (MIG) and High Income Group (HIG), if there was no cap on the salary of persons under the LIG. "If this is LIG then what is MIG? We are confident that wisdom is not used in this matter... You cannot have a limitless category (for salary) for such schemes... Do you think that a person coming with a Rolls-Royce will stay there, he will purchase it as an investment. Your entire scheme is defeated by your own wisdom... We don't know who gave you this idea to open the cap (on salary) but yes, we are very confident that all this hasn't happened innocently... The objective of the PMAYU-2.0 was to sell the flats to the poorest of the poor and not to deprive the poor and sell it to the rich..." a visibly enraged Justice Ghuge remarked. The bench expressed shock over the 'eligibility' criteria formulated by the CIDCO, especially for not limiting the annual salary for persons applying for the LIG category. "It doesn't require any debate that CIDCO was floating a housing scheme strictly under the PMAYU-2.0... Such scheme has been introduced by the Government with a sole object of ensuring that each family has a house. Our judicial conscience is shocked by the fact that a person earning Rs 6 lakh per hour and a person earning Rs 6 lakh per year are competing under per the scheme...Does it appeal to reason and logic and does it stand the test of judicial scrutiny that such small homes, which were intended for LIG, would be open for persons earning in billions. Are you not taking India back to 60 years, to which J Krishna Iyer referred as 'Daridri Narayan'? Are you not mocking the poor of this country?" Justice Ghuge recorded in the order. A single glance at the scheme, the bench said, will shock the conscious of any prudent man.The bench noted that as per the PMAYU-2.0, a person earning up to Rs 6 lakh annually would fall under the LIG, while a person earning upto Rs 12 lakhs would be categorised under MIG-I and one earning up to Rs 18 lakhs annually would come under MIG-II category. "We are concerned today that the very purpose of the PMAYU 2.0 has been defeated by the advertisement published by CIDCO in October 2024, which only is in complete opposition to the welfare scheme... Prima facie, considering the SC ruling in Olga Telis case, at this interim stage we are of the view that this petition deserves to be entertained.... What we find most serious and which has shocked our judicial conscious is as to whether CIDCO could have modified the scheme of affordable homes to this extent by virtually destroying the objective of the PMAYU 2.0," the judges said in the order.The bench further opined that by modifying the eligibility criteria and issuing advertisement of the same in October 2024, the CIDCO has destroyed the objective of providing 'affordable' homes to homeless citizens. It further noted that several thousands of flats were already allotted under the 'lottery' system and therefore, the bench stayed the entire process. "CIDCO not to create any equities in the favour of people, to whom flats allotted and given possession, despite them having salary beyond Rs 6 lakhs and having or not having a pucca house anywhere in India. Those, who are...

'How Can One Earning Above Rs 6 Lakh Annually Be Low Income Group?' Bombay High Court Questions CIDCO, Stays PMAY Flat Allotments

Narsi Benwal

You are forcing a bicycle-rider to compete with a Mercedes owner, the Court told the CIDCO

Tags