ast 1 wp3556.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3556 OF 2010 Velji Dharamshi Vavia. ....Petitioner Vs. The City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Atul Rajadhyaksha with Akhilesh Dubey, A.A.Khan & Rahul Sharma i/b. M/s. M.Tripathi & Co. for the petitioner. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni with Mr. A.M.Kulkarni, advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- MAY 3, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. The order, which is impugned in this Writ Petition is passed by the Manager(Town Services) II of the Respondent No.1 Corporation. By the said order, the conditional permission for transfer of Plot Nos.87,88 and 89 admeasuring 2780.30 sq.mt. in Sector 35, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai in favour of the Petitioner granted on 26th June, 2007, came to be cancelled. The substance of the ground, on which the said decision has been recorded is that the Petitioner was not in a position to ensure presence of original allottee of the ast 2 wp3556.10.sxw said plot for the registration and execution of the documents in favour of the Petitioner. The fact that the original allottee from whom the Petitioner claimed to have purchased the said plot is not cooperative, as a result of which, the Petitioner is unable to comply with the said condition, cannot be considered in the present proceedings, which is writ jurisdiction. The Petitioner, if so advised, may take recourse to such other remedy, as may be permissible in law, so as to ask for positive relief against the original allottee of the plot and/or against the Respondent Corporation. To enable the Petitioner to take recourse to such remedy, we would extend interim protection given to the Petitioner in terms of order dated 9th March, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No.1801 of 2010 for a period of three weeks from today. The Respondent Corporation shall not give effect to the order dated 9th April, 2010 for a period of three weeks from today. 3. We make it clear that indulgence shown to the Petitioner is not an expression of opinion either way of the merits of the controversy, in particular, regarding the plea available to the original allottee. All questions will have to be addressed on its own merits in accordance with law in the proposed proceedings. 4. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)