1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1640 OF 2008 1.Sulochana Rajanna Narasappa & ors. ...Petitioners vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.R.D.Suryavanshi i/b. Mr.Shailesh Shukla, for Petitioners. None for Respondents. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 14th July,2009. P.C.:- 1. The petitioners who are 17 in number in this petition challenge the order dated 13.9.2006 which is passed by the Chief Engineer of Respondent no.3. The 2 brief facts that are relevant are that the petitioners were having their huts on Government Land. Those huts were required to be removed for construction of fly over. The Deputy Collector of Respondent no.2 made an enquiry to find out, whether as per the Government Policy of rehabilitation of the project affected slum dwellers, the petitioners or persons like them are entitled to be rehabilitated. Alongwith the letter dated 20.6.2006 a list was enclosed of the persons who, according to the Deputy Collector, had put up their huts before the year 2000, as according to the Deputy Collector the persons who are put up their huts before the year 2000 were eligible for rehabilitation as per the Government Policy. The names of the petitioners are included in that list. The Chief Engineer i.e. Respondent no.3, however, by order dated 13.9.2006 informed the Deputy Collector that those persons whose structures came into existence after 1.1.1995 are not entitled to rehabilitate. Thus, from the order, it appears that according to the Chief Engineer only those persons whose structures were in existence on or before 1.1.1995 were entitled to be 3 rehabilitate. Perusal of the Government Resolution dated 14.11.2005 which is at Exhibit E to the petition, however, shows that the Government policy in this regard is to give alternate accommodation to the slum dwellers and encroachers who have put up their structures upto the year 2000. It is obvious from the order dated 13.9.2006 that the Chief Engineer has not considered the Government Resolution dated 14.11.2005 while making the order dated 13.9.2006. 2. The Respondents have been served. They are also appearing, but they have chosen not to file any reply. None also appears for them today. Therefore, we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners. Perusal of the documents on record shows that the impugned order dated 13.9.2006 has been made by the Chief Engineer of Respondent no.3 without considering the Government Resolution dated 14.11.2005. In the absence of any reply we have to assume that Government Resolution dated 14.11.2005 is in force. In our opinion, before rejecting the case of the petitioners, the Chief Engineer was under a 4 duty to take into consideration all relevant aspects of the matter. The Government Resolution dated 14.11.2005 was relevant for deciding the eligibility of the petitioners for alternate accommodation. In our view, therefore, order dated 13.9.2006 suffers from non application of mind to the relevant and crucial aspect of the matter, and therefore, it is vitiated and liable to be set aside. 3. In our opinion, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- The order dated 13.9.2006 impugned in the petition is set aside. The Chief Engineer of Respondent no.3 is directed to make a fresh reasoned order after taking into consideration all relevant aspects of the matter including the Government Resolution dated 14.11.2005, a copy of which is at Exhibit E to the petition. Such order shall be made by the Chief 5 Engineer of Respondent no.3 as expeditiously as possible, in any case within a period of three months from the date on which writ of this order is served on him. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.)