- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 1474 OF 2007 Yogesh Daulatraj Mehta & Ors. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Kum R. Iyer Sr. counsel with S. Thakkar & Co. for the petitioners. Sri G. W. Mattos, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Sri Y. Chaudhari, Advocate for the respondent No.5. CORAM : SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR AND SRI A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 7, 2007. P.C. . Heard. By the present petition, the petitioners are seeking to challenge the order dated 24th September 1992 and 30th September 1992 wherein the respondent No. 2 had approved the proposal of acquisition of the land and the respondent No.2 had passed an award relating to vest the said property in the MHADA, under the provisions of law, comprised under MHADA Act. - 2 - The petition has been filed in July 2007. The only ground for delay in approaching the Court disclosed in the petition is that the petitioners were appointed as the trustees of the Trust on 20th September 2005. Even though the petition filed in July 2007, neither any satisfactory explanation, nor any sufficient ground disclosed for condoning the delay in approaching the Court. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay from 1992 to 2005, except contending that the petitioners were appointed as the trustees in September 2005. It can hardly be said to be an explanation for delay of fifteen years in approaching the court for challenging the acuisition of the property in the year 1992 and on this ground of laches alone, the petition is liable to be rejected. As the constitutional validity of the provisions of MHADA Act is sought to be challanged essentially on account of challange to the acquisition of the property and as such the challenge is not maintainable on account of unexplained delay, question of entertaining challange to the constitutional validity of the said provision of law does not arise. Hence the petition fails and petition is accordingly - 3 - hereby rejected. 2. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner craves leave to file appeal against the order. We do not find any substantial question of law for consideration in the matter, and therefore, request is rejected. However, the status-quo of order initially passed shall remain in force for a period of 12 weeks. Sd/- [ R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.] Sd/- [A. A. SAYED, J.]