-: 1 :- SPB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (Ldg.)NO. 347 OF 2008 Smt. Shanti Ambalal Solanki .. Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mr.A.M.Joshi a/w. Ms. Lalita Panchakshari for the petitioner. Mr.Pradeep Jadhav, AGP for the Respondents. ----- CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & A. A. SAYED, JJ. A. A. SAYED, JJ. A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 08TH JULY, 2008. DATED : 08TH JULY, 2008. DATED : 08TH JULY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard. 2. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders passed by the Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai in Slum Appeal No.312 of 2006 dated 31st July, 2007 as well as the Dy. Collector dated 31st of March, 2006 on the ground that the authorities have failed to take into consideration the relevant documents while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner the authorities failed to take note of the document, namely, the receipt about the application made by the petitioner -: 2 :- during the survey of the slum area in question. 3. Perusal of the impugned order clearly discloses that the authorities below after consideration of the documents placed before it held that the petitioner had failed to establish her claim that she had been the resident of a structure of Parigh Khadi, L.T. Vasahat B/H M/ Pal Quarters, Kurla Mumbai-70 and it was borne out from the document in relation to the payment of the electricity charges placed by the petitioner herself before the said authority. Indeed, the said document clearly discloses the address of the petitioner as F/24, Municipal Colony, Bhangiwada, L.B.S. Road, Kurla, Mumbai- 400 070, which is different from the area claimed by the petitioner. 4. As regards the document which is alleged to have been not considered by the authorities, the impugned order apparently discloses reference to the said document and that apart the document on the face of it no-where discloses to be referring to the premises claimed by the petitioner. The document merely speaks that the application dated 26.11.1990 filed by the petitioner was received in the office. On the reverse of the said document, it is disclosed that in exchange of the said receipt the occupants of the hutment would be issued a -: 3 :- photopass. It is not the case of the petitioner that at any point of time the petitioner had obtained such photopass in exchange of such receipt. Even otherwise, the receipt does not disclose any address in relation to the premises if at all it was occupied by the petitioner at the time when the said application was filed in the office. The receipt no-where discloses the date of the receipt of such application in the office. The receipt also does not disclose any seal of the respondent’s office. It is not known whether the said receipt is genuine receipt or not. In the circumstances, no credit can be given to such document and therefore, no fault can be found with the competent authority giving no credential to the said document while deciding the matter. In the circumstances, we do not find any illegality committed by the authorities while passing the impugned order. They have passed the said order in exercise of their jurisdiction under the statutory provisions and the findings arrived at are clearly borne out from the record. No irregularity is noticed in decision making process. 5. Hence there is no case for interference in the impugned order. The petition fails and is, therefore, rejected. -: 4 :- (R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR,J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)