PNP 1 WP1307-15.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGNAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1307 OF 2010 Om Sai Darshan Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) and others ..Petitioners. versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. ..... Mr. Rajshekhar V. Govilkar for the Petitioners. Mr. A.B. Ketkar, AGP for Respondents 1, 5 and 8. Mr. J.G. Aradwad for Respondents 2 to 4. Mr. A.A. Joshi i/b Mr. A.S. Patwardhan for Respondent No.6. Mr. Piyush Shah for Respondent No.7. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA , JJ. 15 November 2010. P.C. : 1. Though several reliefs have been sought in the Petition, at the hearing, counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners urges only one submission. Learned counsel urged that the entire scheme stands vitiated in view of the fact that Annexure II, certifying the list of eligibility has not been issued. 2. There is no substance in the submission. The First PNP 2 WP1307-15.11 Petitioner was the Petitioner before this Court in an earlier proceeding, Om Sai Darshan Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) v. The State of Maharashtra and others (Writ Petition 910 of 2005). The Petition was disposed of by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon ble Mr. Justice H.L. Gokhale (as His ’ Lordship then was) and Hon ble Mr. Justice A.S.Oka on 26 April 2006. ’ In paragraph 21 of the judgment the Division Bench observed as follows : In the present case, the challenge in the petition is in “ substance to the sanction of Annexure II and the Scheme submitted by Hanuman Nagar Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed) (The Respondent No.4 herein). The SRA had issued NOC and Annexure II in favour of Hanuman Nagar Society on 30th November 1996. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners invited our attention to the communication issued by MHADA which is the competent authority for approval / sanction of Annexure II. By communication dated 22 January 2004 MHADA informed the Architect appointed by the said Hanuman Nagar Society that Annexure II has been cancelled as no steps for implementation of the scheme have been taken by the said society. In the earlier part of this judgment, we have pointed out that the said letter of cancellation was subsequently withdrawn on 5th March 2004. The letter of withdrawal of 5th March 2004 issued by MHADA records that though Annexure II was sanctioned on 30th November 1996, the letter of intent was issued by the SRA in favour of Hanuman Nagar Society on 12th May 2003 and permission to construct transit accommodation was granted on 21st October 2003. As Hanuman Nagar Society could not have taken any steps without the letter of intent issued by the SRA, we find that the action of MHADA of cancellation of PNP 3 WP1307-15.11 Annexure II on the ground of delay was not proper and in our opinion the said decision was rightly rectified by MHADA.” 3. From these observations of the Division Bench it is evident that Annexure II was initially issued on 30 November 1996 and was withdrawn on 22 January 2004. However, MHADA on 5 March 2004 rectified the position and withdrew the cancellation of Annexure II. In view of the observations of the Division Bench in paragraph 21 of this judgment, the Petitioners cannot be heard to urge that Annexure II was not issued. The First Petitioner was a party to the earlier litigation. Counsel appearing on behalf of the SRA has during the course of the hearing also affirmed as a matter of fact that Annexure II has been issued. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta, J.)