The Bombay High Court dismissed a review petition filed by a Mumbai-based doctor, Dr. Mumtaz H. Khoja, who had sought a rehabilitation tenement under a slum redevelopment scheme. The court not only rejected her plea but also imposed a penalty of ₹5 lakh, citing suppression of facts and deliberate misrepresentation.
The bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata further directed an inquiry into how a school was being run in the slum without proper authorization or fire safety measures.
Background
The case stemmed from a long-running dispute over eligibility for housing under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) scheme in Santacruz West. Dr. Khoja had earlier filed a writ petition claiming entitlement to a residential tenement and arrears of rent dating back to 2009, alleging that the developer and SRA had ignored her rights despite her name appearing in the official list of eligible occupants.
After her initial petition was dismissed, she sought a review based on liberty granted by the Supreme Court to present her personal claim again. Through her counsel, she argued that false information had been placed before the High Court, particularly regarding the allotment of temporary accommodation which, she said, was actually assigned to a nearby Urdu school and not to her.
“The petitioner has been unfairly denied her rightful rehabilitation,” her lawyer submitted, adding that the developer had misrepresented facts and deprived her of her home while others received their tenements.
Court’s Observations
The bench, however, found serious inconsistencies and concealment of facts in the petitioner’s submissions. Justice Kamal Khata, writing for the bench, observed that Dr. Khoja had portrayed herself as a helpless senior citizen dependent on her parents, while the evidence showed she was a practicing doctor who had been in possession of not one but three structures in the slum—used as a residence, a clinic, and a school.
“The petitioner has indeed suppressed material facts,” the court remarked, adding that she had “played hide and seek with the Court” and filed separate petitions in the names of different entities to claim multiple benefits.
The judges noted that Dr. Khoja had also failed to disclose that she had already received permanent alternate accommodation for her commercial premises as early as 2006. Furthermore, she had not returned a temporary room allotted earlier, even after new accommodations were provided.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India (2008), the bench reiterated that any litigant seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution must approach the court with clean hands. “Suppression or concealment of material facts is not advocacy—it is jugglery, manipulation, and misrepresentation,” Justice Khata observed pointedly.
Court’s Decision
Concluding that the petition was built on “falsehood and fabricated evidence,” the High Court dismissed it outright. The judges described the case as “a textbook example of abuse of process” and imposed a ₹5 lakh cost, directing that it be paid to the Armed Forces Battle Casualties Welfare Fund within two weeks.
In a rare move, the bench also issued a show cause notice for contempt of court against the petitioner, stating that her actions may warrant penal consequences.
More strikingly, the court ordered the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and SRA to conduct a joint inquiry into how a school with around 150 students was being run in a slum structure without proper permissions or a fire safety clearance. “The facts disclosed reveal not only the dangers to which very young children have been exposed,” the judges remarked, “but also the apparent inaction of the BMC and SRA.”
The order concluded with a direction that the matter be listed for compliance and contempt proceedings on November 13, 2025.
Case Title: Mumtaz H. Khoja vs. The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Anr.
Case Number: Review Petition No. 18 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 773 of 2023