1 WP3423.11 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3423 OF 2011 Ashgari Begum Shaikh & ors. ... Petitioners v/s Administrator & Divisional Commissioner & ors. ... Respondents Dr.Nilesh V.B.Pawaskar for the petitioners. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni for respondent No.3. Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for Resp. Nos.1, 2 and 4. CORAM: RANJIT MORE, J. DATED: 3RD MAY, 2011 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr.Pawaskar and Mr.Kumbhakoni, learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The writ petition pertains to proceedings under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (in short, the Slums Act”). Admittedly, the names of the petitioners are not reflected in Annexure-II and, therefore, held not eligible for alternate 2 WP3423.11 permanent accommodation. The petitioners filed Writ Petition (L) No. 2341 of 2010 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench by order dated 22.10.2010 directed not to demolish the structures which the petitioners claim to be occupying, without following due process of law. The respondent No.3 developer thereafter preferred an application under Sections 33 and 38 of the Slums Act before the Deputy Collector – the competent authority. The competent authority, after hearing parties, directed eviction of the petitioners. This order was challenged before the Administrative and Divisional Commissioner, under Section 35 of the Slums Act. However, that appeal was also dismissed. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioners are not held eligible for alternate permanent accommodation. The petitioners however submit that they have filed an application before the competent authority disputing their ineligibility. Perusal of the order of the competent authority shows that, father of petitioner No.1 was occupying structure No.152 and he has been held eligible for a permanent alternate accommodation. The mother of the petitioner No.3 was occupying structure No.26 and she was held eligible for permanent accommodation. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he has sold his structure to one Deepak Ganpat 3 WP3423.11 Manjarekar and, therefore, said Deepak Ganpat Manjarekar was held eligible for permanent alternate accommodation. The scope of Sections 33, 35 and 38 is limited. The petitioners are entitled for transit accommodation in case they are held eligible in Annexure-II. As stated above, the petitioners are not held eligible and, therefore, I do not find any error in the impugned order. The petition has no substance and the same is dismissed. 4. It is made clear that, in case the petitioners succeed in an application filed before the competent authority and they are held to be eligible for permanent alternate accommodation, then respondent No.3 shall offer them permanent alternate accommodations. 6. At this stage Mr.Pawaskar seeks protection for some time to approach the higher court. The request is opposed by Mr.Kumbhakoni. In the interest of justice and in order to enable the petitioners to approach the higher Court, parties shall maintain status-quo for a period of one week from today. (RANJIT MORE, J.) 4 WP3423.11 5 WP3423.11