gopi 1 w.p.lodg.2756-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION LODGING NO.2756 OF 2011 Sampada Gaikwad & Ors. ..Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Mathew J. Nedumpara with Ms. Rohini M. Amin and S.M.F. Warsi for the petitioners. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J., & MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 14 December 2011. P.C. The petitioners are challenging the demolition of their hutments by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai pursuant to the notice issued under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. 2. All these contentions raised in the present petition have already been dealt by this Court in the judgment dated 9 December 2011 while dismissing Writ Petition Lodging No.1298 of 2011 and connected matters. 3. The contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner invoking Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 is throughly misconceived. The said provisions deal gopi 2 w.p.lodg.2756-11 with modification of final development plan. The impugned action of demolition of the petitioners hutments is in exercise of the powers of the Municipal Corporation under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and the Municipal Corporation has resorted to the said action for the purpose of clearing the encroachments on and around the water pipelines. This Court has already dealt with this issue in the judgment dated 9 December 2011. 4. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (F.I. Rebello and Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, JJ) in Writ Petition No.637 of 2003 dated 20 November 2006 is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Olga Tellis v. Municipal Corporation of Bombay, AIR 1986 SC 180 and the decision of the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 1983 S.C. 130, cannot be entertained by this Court. The judgment of a coordinate bench of this Court is binding on this Court and we would not like to go back on that. In any view of the matter leave has been granted by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition against the said judgment of the Division Bench and the matter is pending before the Apex Court. 5. The petitioners in the present petition have challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3Y of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and the notification dated 4 April 2002 classifying slum into different categories. 6. Since the impugned action of the Municipal Corporation is taken in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act the contention is misconceived. As regards gopi 3 w.p.lodg.2756-11 the classification of slum declaration into different categories also, the matter is governed by the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. 7. We, therefore, see no merit in this petition. The petition is summarily rejected. CHIEF JUSTICE (MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)