1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Writ Petition No.1043 of 2010 Shri Kailash D. Ladke & ors. ... Petitioners v/s. Jagadusha Nagar Avadhut CHSEL & ors. ... Respondents Mr.S.K. Shinde i/by Mr.Sagar Kasar for Petitioners. Mr.J.P. Sen with Ms.Deepti Misley i/by M/s.Vaibhav Mehta & Associates for Res.No.1. Ms.Fezana Behramkamdin with Ms.Swati Deshpande i/by M/s.FZB & Associates for Res.No.17. Mr.R.M. Patne, AGP for State and for Res.Nos.18 & 20. Mr.Subhash Jadhav for Res.No.19. ---- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 5th February, 2010 P.C. : 1.The Petitioners are some of the members of Respondent No.1-Society. There have been several orders passed by the Co-operative Court, Co-operative Appellate Court and this Court in Writ Petition as well as Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) and a subsequent Special Leave Petition (SLP) requiring the Petitioners to vacate their premises. The Petitioners have not vacated the premises as per the orders passed. Consequently, the 2 Co-operative Court has passed an order for appointment of Court Receiver on 12.11.2009. That order has been challenged in Appeal before the Co-operative Appellate Court. Pending that Appeal, this Writ Petition is filed for stay of the order dated 12.11.2009 appointing Court Receiver and for an order restraining the Court Receiver from evicting the Petitioners. 2.The order, if passed as prayed in the Writ Petition, would go directly against the order in the LPA as well as the SLP filed earlier. The Petitioners have not made out absolutely any case showing their legal right not to be evicted from their premises. 3.It is contended that in the LPA that an observation came to be made that the Co-operative Court was needed to be directed to consider the question whether the builder / developer should be directed to furnish a Bank Guarantee of the valuation of the structures occupied by the Petitioners herein and to be directed not to create third party rights in case the dispute failed. This direction was to be given, if the Petitioners herein did not want any alternate accommodation or rent in lieu of alternate accommodation. The Petitioners were directed to vacate the premises. They were also directed to furnish an undertaking to hand over vacant possession of their 3 premises within 1 week in case they required a four- week-period to hand over possession. If the Petitioners did not give undertaking within one week, the Respondents were free to execute the order. 4.The Respondents have sought to execute the order by appointment of Court Receiver. That proceeding has been undertaken not only in compliance with the order passed in the LPA, but is according to the procedure established by law for execution of orders of vacating the premises. The order of appointment of Court Receiver cannot be faulted. The direction for furnishing a Bank Guarantee or restraint upon creation of third party rights cannot be directed or ordered because the Petitioners have not vacated and have not stated whether they want an alternate accommodation or rent in lieu of alternate accommodation. The order to vacate the premises is complete and independent of any direction which could have been passed by the Co- operative Court. The undertaking has not been given. The period of 4 weeks has also expired. Thereafter the Respondents have been constrained to take execution proceedings by appointment of Court Receiver. There is absolutely no merit in the Writ Petition. It is, therefore, dismissed. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)