[1] IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APAPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 8321 OF 2004 Deepak Vithal Gurav & Ors. ... Petitioners. Vs. K.D.M.C. & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. R.S.Patil i/b. Mbnical D’Souza for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Rao for respondent No. 1 to 3. Mrs. M.P.Thakur AGP for respondent NO. 4. Mr. M.S.Kanitkar for Entervenor in C.A. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : Bilal Nazki and Bilal Nazki and Bilal Nazki and A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : April 24, 2009. : April 24, 2009. : April 24, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner’s case is that he was a licensee in a shop belonging to the respondent-Corporation, which was demolished and he was assured of being given an alternate shop after resconstruction. An additional counter affidavit has been filed by Mr. Govind J. [2] Rathod, the Commissioner of the Respondents in which it has been stated that they have constructed 11 shops and there are 25 applicants. The learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation also submits that there are various Civil Suits pending, injunction orders have also been passed in the Suits. Although they have constructed 11 shops, they are not able to allot the shop in view of the injunction orders passed by the Civil Courts although it is contested by the learned Counsel for the petitioner saying that the injunctions granted by the Civil Court do not pertain to the present shops. 3. In this view of the matter, this Court would not be in a position to decide as to whether the petitioner is entitled to allotment of a shop. In any case we cannot decide the eligibility or entitlement of the shops in this petition. Therefore, we dispose of this petition directing the respondents to allot the shops in accordance with the norms they have already fixed or they may fix to any of the aspirant who is eligible under those norms. However, this order shall not be construed to modify or annul any order passed in respect of the present property by any Civil Court. 4. It is expected that the suits filed in respect of the said properties be decided expeditiously. [3] 5. In view of disposal of the petition itself, the intervention application St. No. 811 of 2007 stands disposed of. [Bilal [Bilal [Bilal Nazki,J.] Nazki,J.] Nazki,J.] [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]