IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1579 OF 2008 Prakash Prabhulal Daiya ..... Petitioner V/s. Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. .....Respondents Mr.R.D.Dave i/b M/s.N.N.Vaishnava & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr.J.G.Reddy, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.Vijay Vaghela, for respondent Nos.3 to 6. Ms.Savina Bangera i/b A.R.Mishra, for respondent No.7. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C. 1. By filing this petition, the petitioner has prayed that appropriate writ directions may be issued declaring that the allotment letter dated 14th May, 2006 issued by respondent No.3 on their letter head is false and fabricated document and the letter dated 28-11-2008 issued by respondent No.2 is also illegal and bad in law. It is therefore, prayed that respondents may be directed to hand over permanent alternate accommodation in lieu of old slum premises. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is in connection with permanent 2 alternate accommodation in lieu of old slum premises which was the subject matter of the Scheme. The petition has been seriously opposed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority as well as by respondent Nos.3 to 6. The learned counsel appearing for the S.R.A., submitted that the petitioner has already been allotted alternative premises, for which reference is made to various documents annexed with the affidavit-in-reply. According to the learned counsel for the S.R.A., on the basis of the record of the society, the petitioner has already sold away the premises in question, to one Smt.Roshani Rajendra Manjrekar by an agreement dated 25-06-2006 for consideration. According to him, the said transaction is illegal and against the rules & regulations of the Scheme, for which appropriate action will be taken by S.R.A., as per Section 3-E of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C. & R) Act, 1971, as well as Amended D.C. Rules 33(10). 3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 submitted that the premises in question has already been sold away by the petitioner to the wife of respondent No.7. She further submitted that the amount was paid in cash, which was received by respondent No.7 in view of acceptance of VRS floated by the employer where he was serving. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner disputed this aspect and submitted that there is no evidence to show that the petitioner was allotted the 3 premises under the Scheme. He further submitted that it is true that there are some photographs produced by the S.R.A., but that itself may not prove the fact that the petitioner has actually received the alternate premises and simply because his client had merely taken part in the draw at the time of auction organized by the S.R.A., it cannot be said that the flat was allotted to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the agreement produced on record about the sale of premises in question, is merely an agreement of sale and the petitioner has not signed the same. 4. In our view, such a highly disputed facts cannot be adjudicated by this Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No relief can be granted to the petitioner as prayed for in this petition. However, if the S.R.A. has any material to show that the premises in question has been sold away by the petitioner after accepting it from the S.R.A., the S.R.A. is duty-bound to take appropriate action in this regard in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the S.R.A. submitted that appropriate action will be taken in this behalf. Suffice it to say that in view of the reply of the other side and the disputed question of facts arises in the matter, this petition is not required to be entertained by this Court. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to apply before the High Power Committee or any other appropriate forum as deemed fit in 4 accordance with law. If any application is preferred by the petition, the High Power Committee or any other appropriate forum may consider the said application in accordance with law. Subject to what is stated hereinabove, the petition is disposed of. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )