Bombay High Court Refuses To Lift Stay On Allotment Of 25,000 PMAY Houses, Questions Eligibility Of Affluent Applicants

In a recent case in the Bombay High Court (BHC), the court refused to lift its interim stay on the allotment of nearly 25,000 affordable housing units developed by the City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) 2.0. (PMAY-U 2.0) in Navi Mumbai, raising serious concerns over the eligibility and why higher-income individual applicants are participating in the scheme. The hearing for this was held on Monday, July 27th, 2026. The Division Bench comprised Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad, who questioned whether a scheme aimed at benefiting the economically weaker sections should allow applicants without any upper income limit to compete for flats through a lottery.

Why Was A Stay Put On This?

The court initially stayed the allotment process in March of 2026 after expressing surprise that CIDCO had permitted such a phenomenon, where individuals who earned more than Rs 6 lakh annually could apply for homes which are categorically for individuals in the Lower Income Group (LIG). At the time, the Bench had observed that such a policy was making a bicycle owner compete with a Mercedes owner, according to a report by LiveLaw. The court highlighted this instance as highly unfair to the disadvantaged applicants.

What Was The Defence?

During the latest hearing, Maharashtra Advocate General Dr Milind Sathe clarified that the project includes 25,000 flats, of which only 15,000 are reserved for the Economically Weaker Section (EWS). The remaining 10,000 housing units are open to applicants outside the EWS category. This clarification, however, failed to satisfy the Bench. Seeking to understand the eligibility framework, the Acting Chief Justice asked if this is also available to all economic categories, and whether even judges can apply for flats? For which he received an affirmative response. The court questioned the rationale behind this approach.

Defending the policy, the Advocate General argued that all applicants were aware of this pricing structure before they submitted their applications. The Bench further prodded why there was a lottery system if there was no income restriction for a significant chunk of units. This clause suggested an absence of eligibility limits, for which an auction would be better.

Advocate General further emphasised that the homes listed were required to be sold at a predetermined price, which also does not allow auctioning. The Bench, however, remained unconvinced, considering that PMAY was conceived to provide housing to those who lack adequate means to shelter and do not possess opportunities to gain financial stability. By refusing CIDCO’s plea to proceed with the allotment, the High Court has directed the petitioners to submit their written arguments before the next hearing, also stating that the interim stay is upheld until the next hearing.