-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1639 OF 2008 Samata Nagar Shree Ganesh Co-operative Housing Society Limited ...Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1644 OF 2008 Samata Nagar Vakratunda Co-operative Housing Society Limited ...Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1645 OF 2008 Poisar Sainiketan Co-operative Housing Society Limited ...Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents In all matters: Mr. V.M. Parshurami, instructed by Mr. Ashish Gaikwad, for the petitioners. Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General, with Mr. D.A. Nalawade, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Shrihari Aney, Senior Advocate, with Mr. S.C. Naidu, instructed by Mr. Amit Survase, for respondent No.5. -2- Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate, with Mr. G.N. Salunke, for the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1907 of 2007. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 15, 2008. P.C. Since the reliefs sought for in all these petitions are common, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, these petitions can be conveniently disposed of by this common order. 2. By filing these petitions, the petitioner-societies have challenged the decision by which the No Objection Certificate granted earlier to them has been revoked and a decision has been taken by the Board of MHADA to carry out the society's re-development work through Samta Nagar Co- operative Housing Societies Union Limited in the interest of all members. 3. Initially, these very petitioners have also shown their willingness that the development activity should be carried out by by the Co-operative Housing Society Federation but due to passage of time and in view of the delay they changed their stand and initially NOC was granted in favour of the petitioners but subsequently a decision has been taken by MHADA that in the interest of the members the development work should be carried out by the Federation so that the work can be carried out in a more effective manner. During the course of hearing, the learned Advocate General -3- appearing for the State-MHADA as well as Mr. Aney appearing for respondent No.5 Federation stated that it is in the interest of all the members that the project should not be further delayed so that if the work is completed, the members can start enjoying the benefits. 4. Considering the aforesaid aspect, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners are not objecting in principle the aspect about work being carried out by Federation but, according to him, the member of the societies are not aware as to the benefits which the members are likely to get as well as the details regarding the project. In this behalf, learned counsel for respondent No.5-Federation submitted that the Federation will give whatever necessary information if the petitioners want in this behalf and even the sanctioned plans also will be shown. He submitted that all attempts will be made to see that the project is completed earlier so that the members are not required to suffer. 5. In view of the aforesaid, nothing further is required to be done in all these matters. The members of the petitioner-societies or through their office-bearers can visit the office of Respondent No.5 and that respondent No.5 shall make all available information with regard to the development work in question. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, as pointed out earlier, the petitioners have no individual grievance against the development work being carried out by the Federation but since they were -4- not aware of the factual aspect of the matter, grievance was made before this Court. Be that as it may and the stand taken by respondent No.5, it is not necessary to keep these petitions pending. All the petitions are accordingly disposed of. If the petitioners wish to inspect the plans in question and require any further data in this behalf, the same can be made available by respondent No.5. If after carrying out the said exercise, still the petitioners are not satisfied, it will be open to the concerned petitioners to approach the High Power Committee appointed by this Court by virtue of the Full Bench judgement of this Court. 7. It is, however, pointed out at the beginning of this matter by Mr. Sakhare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.1907 of 2007, that since he wants to file an application for joining as party respondent in all these matters by way of Chamber Summonses in these matters, the hearing may be deferred. He has submitted that whatever may be the decision in relation to the matters in hand may affect his matter as, according to him, similar issue is involved in his petition. We may clarify that the observations and order passed in these petitions should be confined between the parties in these petitions only. 8. In view of the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is not necessary for us to examine the other prayers in these petitions. Subject to what is stated above, these petitions are accordingly disposed of. -5- Interim relief in all these petitions stands vacated. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J.