ssp 1 WP 417 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.417 OF 2011 Riyajul Khan (New Occupant) Rehana Nazir Ahmed (old Occupant) and Ors. .....Petitioners versus Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division and and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1175 OF 2010 Mohd. Ashraf s/o Late Jalaluddin and Ors. .....Petitioners versus Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division and and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.215 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1174 OF 2010 Riyajul Khan (New Occupant) Rehana Nazir Ahmed (old Occupant) and Ors. .....Petitioners versus Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division and and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Anand Sangvikar i/by Mrs.Anjali Awasthi, for the petitioners. Mr.J.G.Reddy, for the respondent No.3. Mr.Milind More, AGP, for the State. Mr.S.G.Surana, for respondent No.6. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 20 th OCTOBER, 2011 ssp 2 WP 417 of 2011 P.C. 1. By way of the above petitions, the petitioners have prayed for appropriate writ directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order bearing Nos.Appeal/Desk/Slum-490 of 2010 issued by the respondent No.1, Administrator and the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, dated 03-05-2010. 2. During the course of hearing, it is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the SRA that an affidavit-in-reply has been filed on record and in view of the said reply, the scheme is already under the process of completion and the petitioners have already shifted to the permanent alternate accommodation. This aspect has already been observed by this Court in its order dated 12th May, 2010. Infact, when the matters were moved before the Vacation Bench, it was found that there is no urgency in the matter. 3. Since it is not in dispute that the petitioners have already shifted in the permanent alternate accommodation, the scheme can be said to have been completed so far as the petitioners are concerned. In view of the same, the points raised by the petitioners cannot now be examined. If the petitioners have any other grievance in connection with the implementation of the scheme, he can take out appropriate proceedings including criminal proceedings in this behalf. The learned counsel for the ssp 3 WP 417 of 2011 petitioners states that some documents were prepared fraudulently by the society. If the criminal proceedings are already pending, it is for the petitioners to pursue such criminal proceedings. 4. In view of what is stated above, the writ petitions are disposed of. 5. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the above Chamber Summons does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )