-: 1 :- wp-6859/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6859 OF 2011 Jaywant Madhav Kamat and ors. ..Petitioners. Versus M.C.G.M. and Others. ..Respondents. Mr. Benny Chatterjee i/b Sutapa Shah for the petitioners. Mr. Ries, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. M. M. Malvankar for BMC. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : October 19, 2011. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The writ petition arises out the proceeding under section 105B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 [for short “the MMC Act”]. The petitioners are occupying the tenements on the plot of land belonging to the Corporation which has been taken up for re-development as per the provisions of DCR No. 33(9) of 1991. The occupants of the tenements have formed co-operative housing society. All the members of the society, including the present petitioners, initially gave consent for re- development. Subsequently, Annexure-II was prepared by the competent authority. Petitioners were held to be eligible for srp -: 2 :- wp-6859/11 the alternative permanent accommodation. Some of the occupants have already been evicted. Since the petitioners did not co-operate, the proceedings under section 105B of the MMC Act came to be initiated. The Enquiry Officer by his order dated 17th September 2010 directed the petitioners to vacate their tenements within one month. The petitioners challenged this order by way of Miscellaneous Appeal No.119 of 2010 before the City Civil Court, Bombay. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court by his order dated 11th July 2011 dismissed the petitioners’ appeal. 2. The petitioners also independently challenged the redevelopment scheme by filing proceedings before the High Power Committee. The petitioners’ challenge was negatived by the High Power Committee. The petitioners thereafter approached this Court by filing Writ Petition, however, that writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate proceedings. 3. The scope of the present proceedings is very limited. The petitioners, at the most, can claim that the requirement of the premises by the Corporation is not in public interest or bona fide. However, this ground is not available to petitioners -: 3 :- wp-6859/11 as Corporation need the premises for redevelopment. The objection to the redevelopment scheme cannot be entertained in the present proceedings. As stated above, the petitioners have already objected to the said scheme before the competent authority, viz., High Power Committee, however, they failed there. 4. That apart, initially 64 members unanimously gave consent for redevelopment. Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this consent was given in the year 1999 and same was obtained fraudulently and therefore fresh mandate is required to be taken. The submission is without any merit in view of the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (Ld) No. 851 of 2010 decided on 10th February 2011. The Division Bench held that consent once given cannot be revoked. In any case, the petitioners cannot argue these points in the present proceedings, as the scope of the present petition is very limited. The Corporation has proved that premises occupied by the tenants is required in the public interest, namely, redevelopment of the area. Mr. Ries, learned senior counsel does not dispute the entitlement of the petitioners for -: 4 :- wp-6859/11 permanent alternative accommodation. Taking overall facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 5. At this stage, Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioners sought continuation of the interim relief for the period of four weeks in order to enable the petitioners to approach the higher forum. Mr. Ries, senior learned counsel for the BMC submitted that only reasonable time may be granted to the petitioners. In view of the statements and in the interest of justice, the operation of the interim order granted on 18/8/2011 is continued for the period of four weeks from today. (RANJIT MORE, J.)