:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1928 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2239 OF 2008 Sher Mohamed Hajigul ..Applicant Vs. Balchandra Timanna Patil and ors. ..Respondents Mr. A.K. Tripathi i/by Mr.U.S.R. Singh for applicant. Mr. Amit H. Yadav for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. Sameer Patil, AGP for respondent nos.3 and 4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B.H. B.H. B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. MARLAPALLE,J. MARLAPALLE,J. Date Date Date : : : September 16, 2008. September 16, 2008. September 16, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Tripathi i/by Mr. Singh the learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Yadav appears for respondent nos.1 and 2 and the learned AGP appears for respondent nos.3 and 4. 2. Writ Petition No. 2239 of 2008 was disposed off by my order dated 2/4/2008 on the basis of the :2: statement made by the learned AGP that a copy of the notification would be made available to the learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner within two weeks. 3. As of now, it is not known whether a copy of the notification has been made available to the applicant’s counsel or not. However, along with this Civil Application a copy of the letter dated 17/6/2008 addressed to the applicant’s advocate by the Deputy District Collector (Encroachment Removal) from the office of District Collector, Mumbai City has been brought on record. As per the said letter Chhota Sonapur, Sukhlaji Street area is not declared a slum area and, therefore, there was no question of any resolution/ and or Act declared or announced. 4. As per Mr. Tripathi based on this communication, it is clear that the applicant’s premises are not located in a declared slum area and, therefore, his application submitted before the Competent Authority (Rent Act), Konkan Division will have to be decided on merits. In my considered :3: opinion, this relief cannot be sought in a review petition because the petition was disposed off in terms of prayer clause (a) and the alternative prayer was not considered. If the communication received by the applicant from the Deputy Collector supports his case that his application before the Competent Authority under the Rent Act is required to be decided on merits would imply that the order dated 30/7/2003 passed by the Competent Authority will have to be set aside by restoring Application No. 40 of 1998 to the file and a further direction to decide the same on merits. The remedy for the applicant would be, therefore, to file a fresh petition challenging the order dated 30/7/2003 or in the alternative he may approach the Competent Authority under the Rent Act and file an application for restoration of Application No. 40 of 1998 so as to decide the same on merits. Admittedly, the order dated 30/7/2003 passed by the Competent Authority has held that Application No. 40 of 1998 was not maintainable and on the ground that the application premises area was a censused slum area. :4: 5. Hence, this application is rejected but with liberty to the applicant either to file a fresh writ petition challenging the order dated 30/7/2003 or approach the Competent Authority under the Rent Act for restoration of Application No. 40 of 1998. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.) Marlapalle,J.)