1 wp1441.10.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1441 OF 2010 Narmada Mahadeo Bhosale & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. The Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Indu Prakash Tripathi with Mr. N.R. Dubey i/by Mr. C.K. Tripathi for the Petitioners. Mr. G.W. Mattos, AGP for Respondent No.1. CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : JULY 7, 2011. P.C.:- The Petitioners are in occupation of transit accommodation. Their apprehension is that they are liable to be dispossessed by the First Respondent without following due process of law. In the affidavit in reply it has been stated on behalf of the First Respondent that Petitioner Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 would be allotted alternate transit accommodation without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the First Respondent. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners 2 wp1441.10.sxw ssm states that the aforesaid Petitioners are ready and willing to accept the transit accommodation as stated in paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in- reply. The First and Fourth Petitioners, the Court is informed, have already shifted to the transit accommodation which has been offered by MHADA. The learned AGP states that the premises of the Second Petitioner are not required presently for the purposes of redevelopment but that when they are required for the purposes of redevelopment, the First Respondent will follow due process of law in similar terms and/or by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 95A (3) of the MHADA Act, 1976. In this view of the matter no further directions are sought in the Petition. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)