1 srk pil-29-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.29 OF 2010 Krantikari Jaihind Sena though Mr. Sudhir Yashwant Surve and others. ... Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Mr. R.N. Kachawe for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Saluja, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. A.G. Damle for respondent No.9. Mr. P.S. Dani for respondent No.10 to 14. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. Thursday, November 18, 2010 P .C. This PIL was filed in November, 2009 by petitioner No.1- Krantikari Jaihind Sena, through Mr. Sudhir Yashwant Surve, Member of Political Party and five other petitioners who are occupants of the rooms in the property belonging to MHADA Vasahat, Mulund, Mumbai, 2. The petitioners challenge the legality and validity of the development project of the concerned property being building Nos.1 to 56 of MHADA at Mhada Colony, Mulund, Mumbai. 3. At the hearing of this petition, it is brought to our notice that as stated in the affidavit-in-reply dated 6th September, 2010 by respondent No.9, out of total 1399 members who are in occupation of the rooms in the above 2 srk pil-29-10.sxw buildings, as many as 1395 members have given their consent for redevelopment and 1385 members have already executed agreements and 1360 members agreements have already been registered. It is also pointed out by the respondents that petitioner Nos.2 to 6 themselves have also executed agreements for redevelopment which was impugned in the petition filed in November, 2009. Hence the grievance raised in the petition by petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 does not survive. Consequently, the petition itself does not survive as far as petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are concerned. Petitioner No.1 does not have any locus standi to challenge the impugned project of redevelopment of the properties belonging to MHADA. 4. As far as the issue of public interest involved in the redevelopment of the properties of MHADA, the learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to show as to how public interest will be adversely affected by the redevelopment project being undertaken jointly by MHADA, the members and the developer. 5. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.