1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 824 OF 2007 along with Civil Application No.2432 of 2007 M/s Charmee Corporation .. Petitioner Vs Kalyanji Dhanji Gada and ors .. Respondents Mr.D.S.Sakhalkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr P.S.Dani, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. J.G.Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr Y.R.Dube, Advocate for respondent no.5. Mr S.D.Rayrikar, AGP, for respondent no.7. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATE : 20/07/2009 PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Counsel for the respondents waive service. Petition is heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned an order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the Administrator & Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, allowing the appeal filed by respondent no.1. In the appeal, respondent no.1 had claimed T 2 that he was entitled for an allotment of a tenement on the front side of the building. The tenement No.A-5, allotted to respondent no.1, is on the rear side of the building. The operative portion of the order dated 27.10.2006 reads thus: “(i)Appeal is allowed. (ii)The order of the Deputy Collector (Ench/Rem) & Competent Authority,Bandra No.10- A/209/2005 dated 20/10/2005 is set aside. (iii)Respondent no.2 is directed to consider appellant’s claim for allotment of frontal tenement No.B-2 or C-5, by shifting either respondent no.4 or 5 from his premises to tenement No.A-5 which is presently allotted to the appellant. (iv)No order as to costs.” 4. This petition is filed by the developer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved only by paragraph (ii) of the operative portion of the order dated 27.10.2006. By that part of the order, the order of respondent no.3-the Deputy Collector (Enc/Evc) and Competent Authority, Bandra, dated 20.10.2005, has been set aside. By the order dated 20.10.2005 passed by respondent no.3, the appellant was directed to be evicted from the transit accommodation. In my opinion, unless the claim of the petitioner as per the order dated 27.10.2006 is considered, he cannot be forced to vacate the 3 transit accommodation. The concerned authority, vide order dated 27.10.2006, has rightly set aside the order dated 20.10.2005. However, no time frame, within which this entire exercise should be completed, has been prescribed. Hence, I issue the following directions. (i) Respondent no.3-the Deputy Collector, (Enc/Evc) and Competent Authority, Bandra, shall consider the claim of respondent no.1 for allotment of a tenement on the front side of the building in lieu of the tenement A-5, as per the order dated 27.10.2006, and pass speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to mention that the order shall be passed only after giving an opportunity of being heard to respondent nos 1,5 and 6. (ii)This Court is issuing direction to respondent no.3-the Deputy Collector (Enc/Evc) and Competent Authority, Bandra, to consider the claim of respondent no.1, since all the learned counsel for the parties have agreed that the direction issued vide order dated 27.10.2006 to respondent no.2, i.e the petitioner herein in the appeal was a topographical error and the direction, in fact, has been issued to respondent no.1 in the appeal, i.e. 4 Respondent no.3 in the present petition. (iii)Respondent no.1 shall vacate the transit accommodation and shift to the tenement allotted to him by respondent no. 3 and even if the order of respondent no.3 is adverse to the petitioner, he shall shift to the tenement no.A-5 or any other tenement allotted to him within a period of two weeks, without prejudice to his rights and contentions. (iv) The petitioner to produce a copy of this order before respondent no.3 within a period of one week from today. (v) With these directions, rule is disposed of. (vi)Civil Application No.2432 of 2007 stands disposed of accordingly. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)