((-1-)) HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 34 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1342 OF 2006 Jayendra Srimalla ... Rev.Petitioner Versus MHADA and Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Madhav Jamdar i/by Hemant Ghadigaonkar for Review Petitioner. Mr. G.W. Mattows, A.G.W. for Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 11, 2007 DATED: OCTOBER 11, 2007 DATED: OCTOBER 11, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. . It is the contention of the Petitioner that this court in respect of the alternative prayer did not consider the same on the ground that the issue was not before the court. The learned counsel draws our attention to Prayer Clause (c) of the Petition. . The Petitioner has also made representation to MHADA dated 5.2.2007. Considering that the allotment in respect of the premises bearing No. 3A has been cancelled, and that the order has been upheld by this court, Respondent MHADA to consider representation made by the Review Petitioner and dispose of the same at any rate not latter than ((-2-)) eight weeks from today. In the event representation is rejected, MHADA shall return the money as per rules. If the Review Petitioner aggrieved, he will be entitled to take such steps to which he is entitled to in law. . With the above observations, Order dated 5.12.2006 stands modified accordingly. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)