1 WPL-1354/11 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1354 OF 2011 Shri Bankelal S Mishra : Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & ors. : Respondents. Mr. O P Pandey i/by M/s. Pandey & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms. Uma Palsule-Desai AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 5 and 6. Mr. V D Patil for Respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR, R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 20th September 2011 P.C. 1 The Petitioner’s claim in the above Petition is as regards grant of temporary alternate accommodation as well as permanent alternate accommodation. The Petitioner’s structure is part of a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme under Regulation 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations 1991. The Petitioner’s name appears in the Annexure-II issued by the Competent Authority i.e. Deputy Collector (Encroachment). On the said basis, the Petitioner was offered temporary alternate accommodation or Rs.6000/- per month in lieu of the said temporary alternate accommodation which has been recorded in the order dated 27/06/2011, the relevant portion of which is at Page Nos.34 and 35 of the paper book. The case of the Petitioner is that though the said statement has been made, in actual fact, no allotment is made neither any amount is offered as and by way of compensation 2 WPL-1354/11 2 The learned counsel appearing for Respondents make a statement that if the Petitioner approaches the competent authority, action in terms of the statement recorded in the said order dated 25/06/2011 would be taken. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner would approach the Competent Authority, needless to say that, in the said eventuality the Competent Authority would act in accordance with the statement made in the said order dated 25/06/2011. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction in our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]