ssp 1 WP(L) 1992 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1992 OF 2011 Bifaidevi Sagaram Jaiswar .....Petitioner versus Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Madhur S. Surana, for the petitioner. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, Govt. Pleader, for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 8. Ms.Madhubala Kajale, AGP, for respondent No.3. Mr.Arun Panicker, for respondent No.5. Mr.Anand Sangvikar and Mr.Moin Khan, for respondent Nos.6 and 7. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 09 th DECEMBER, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. 2. The learned counsel appearing in the matter waive service of rule on behalf of the respective respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete respondent No.4 Society. The respondent No.4 Society stands deleted from the array of parties. Since point involved in the petition is short one, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is heard forthwith and is disposed of by this order. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the High Power Committee dated 05-08-2011, by which the High Power Committee confirmed the eligibility of the respondent Nos. ssp 2 WP(L) 1992 of 2011 6 and 7 and set aside the order passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, by which the petitioner and the respondent Nos.6 and 7 jointly held eligible under the scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s husband was residing on the relevant day in the premises in question jointly with the respondent No.6 and 7. On inquiry with the learned Govt. Pleader, the Court is informed that the name of the husband of the petitioner finds place in the voters list in respect of the premises in question on 01-01-1995. In view of the same, it is clear that the petitioner was occupying the premises with her husband on 01-01-1995 jointly with the respondent No.6 and 7. The said aspect has already been considered by the SRA. Considering the same, the impugned order dated 05-08-2011 passed by the High Power Committee is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the High Power Committee for taking fresh decision. After examining the voters list and other documents, the High Power Committee may take appropriate decision as to whether the premises in question was jointly occupied by the petitioner herein through her husband as well as by the respondent Nos.6 and 7. Appropriate fresh decision may be taken in accordance with law, especially the abstract of the voters list in this behalf and after hearing the petitioner and the respondent Nos.6 and 7, the High Power Committee may take appropriate decision within a period of three months from today and the ssp 3 WP(L) 1992 of 2011 decision may be communicated to the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 forthwith. 4. In view of what is stated above, rule is accordingly partly made absolute to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)