1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2589/2008 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1439/2009 Prem Kutir Welfare Asso. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr.A.M.Sarogi for petitioner Ms.Kiran Bagalia for M.M.R.D.A. Ms.S.M.Modale for B.M.C. Mr.J.S.Kini i/b Mr.S.Dubey for Res.4 to 6 CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : 3rd December, 2009. P.C.:- . These two Writ Petitions are filed by Prem Kutir Welfare Association who claims to be an organization formed by the respondents of the building known as Prem Kutir Building situated opposite I.I.T.Gate No.2 ,Powai,Mumbai-76.( the said building for short ). 2] In Writ Petition 2589/2008 the State of Maharashtra, Bombay Municipal Corporation, M.M.R.D.A.and the owners of the said building have been impleaded as party respondents. 2 Following prayers are made :- a] That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate writ, order and directions directing the respondent no.1 to appoint an appropriate Officer to investigate and enquired into the actual premises required for widening of the road situated at J.V.L.R.Adishankaracharya Marg, Powai, Mumbai- 400076 including the building known as Prem Kutir and also the persons who are actually entitled to get permanent alternate accommodation and subject to outcome of the said enquiry, allotments made contrary to the report be revoked and cancelled and necessary action be initiated against responsible persons for irregularities in the allotment process. b] That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present petition, the Respondent no.2 and 3 be restrained by an order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from allotting and/or put any person in possession of permanent 3 alternate accommodation in lieu of their existing premises allegedly coming in the way of expansion of road known as J.V.L.R.Section II Adishankarcharya Marg, Powai Mumbai -76 including the occupants of the building known as Prem Kutir situated at Adishankarcharya Marg, Opp.I.I.T. Main Gate Powai Mumbai -76. 3] In Writ Petition 1439/2009 State of Maharashtra, Bombay Municipal Corporation , M.M.R.D.A. , owners of the said building and M.H.A.D.A.have been impleaded as party respondents.Following prayers are made. a] That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass an appropriate writ,order and direction directing some fit and proper person and/or officer of Respondent no.1 hereinabove to hold necessary enquiry, investigation in respect of conduct of the Respondents no.2,3 & 7 in showing the property falling within the expansion of road though , in-fact, it is not so and also issuing the notice under the 4 provisions of Section 354 of B.M.C.Act to facilitate the Respondents No.4 to 6 to get the building vacated and thereafter, make plans to re-construct the same under the guise of the said notice on such terms as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. b] That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass appropriate writ, order and direction permitting the Petitioners to carry out necessary repairs to the building more particularly, the building known as Prem Kutir situated at Adishankaracharya Marg, Opp.I.I.T.Main Gate Powai Mumbai -76 or in alternate, Respondent No.7 be directed to take necessary steps for acquiring the said building being the building known as Prem Kutir situated at Adishankaracharya Marg, Opp.I.I.T.Main Gate Powai Mumbai-76 , on such terms as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. c] That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, Respondents No.2,3 & 7 be restrained by an order and injunction of 5 this Hon’ble Court from taking any further action in respect of the building known as Prem Kutir situated at Adishankaracharya Marg,Opp.I.I.T.Main Gate Powai Mumbai- 76 , either under the guise of the alleged expansion of the road or under the guise of notice issued under the provisions of Section 354 of B.M.C.Act on such terms as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. 4] These Writ Petitions pertain to the said building.Parties are also the same except that in Writ Petition no.1439/2009 , MHADA has been impleaded as party respondent. 5] Writ Petition 2589/2008 is filed on 11/11/2008 and Writ Petition 1439/2009 is filed on 3/3/2009. Admittedly thereafter the petitioner has filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Mumbai being L.C. Suit 2375/2009.This suit is filed against the State of Maharashtra, Bombay Municipal Corporation , M.M.R.D.A. and M.H.A.D.A..Curiously 6 enough owners do not appear to have been made party to the suit. This suit also pertains to the said building. Following prayers are made :- a] That it , this Hon’ble Court, be declared that the Defendants, their officers and/or any other person have no right to carry out any demolition in respect of any of the structure or the premises occupied by the members of the Plaintiffs as per the list appearing at Exhibit-E to the plaint in respect of the building situated at Adi Shankaracharya Marg ,Near I.I.T. Main Gate, Powai, Mumbai 400 076 in any manner whatsoever. b] That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to pass a permanent order and injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or any other person or persons claiming through or under them from taking any action of demolition in respect of any of the premises of the members of the Plaintiffs as per the list appearing at Exhibit-E to the plaint in respect of the building situated at Adi Shankarcharya Marg, Near I.I.T.Main Gate, Powai,Mumbai 400 076 in any manner 7 whatsoever. 6] Having heard learned counsel for the parties we find that the controversy involved in both the petitions and in the suit is the same. We do not understand why ,when the writ petitions were filed , the petitioner chose to file a suit in the City Civil Court. Both the petitions involve extremely disputed questions of facts which cannot be dealt with by this Court in its writ jurisdiction.Inquiry and investigation sought by the petitioner based on disputed questions of facts cannot be ordered by this Court particularly when the suit filed by the petitioner is pending in the City Civil Court. The petitions are therefore dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.]