:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1617 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1617 OF 2008 PETITION NO.1617 OF 2008 Mr. Mohammed Usman Shaikh ..Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Mr.Milind Sathe, Sr. Counsel and S.G. Surana i/b C.N.Gole for the petitioner Mr.R.R. Bhosale,AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Joaquim Reis a.w Mrs. S.M. Modale for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Mr. Abhay Abhyankar, Sr. Counsel a/w V. Mishra for respondent No.5 Mr. Atul Rajdhyaksha, Sr. Counsel and Akilesh Dubey a/w S.Dubey for respondent No.6. CORAM CORAM CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND A.A. A.A. A.A. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. SAYED, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1. By filing this petition the petitioners have prayed that it may be held that the proposal submitted by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 does not survive and the same may be rejected. It is also prayed that the petitioner’s society’s proposal should be processed and the proposal submitted by respondent Nos. 5 to 6 may not be given finality. The dispute is in connection with the development of :2: slum area. The slum dwellers of slum area formed Co-operative Housing society in the name of respondent No.5 and decided to develop the same under D.C.R. 33(7), D.C.R.33 (9) and under D.C.R. 33(10) and the Resolution to that effect was passed and respondent No. 6 was appointed as Developer. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 submitted the proposal to respondent Nos.3 and 4 for developing both the properties in question. Subsequently the petitioner’s-society also sent a proposal for development.It is not in dispute that both the proposals are still pending with the authorities for finalisation. It is the case of the petitioners that the proposal of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 should not be taken into account and the proposal of petitioners should be considered after rejecting the proposal of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The said submission has been resisted by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submitted that they are having required backing of 70% of slum dwellers and since their proposal is prior in time, unless their proposal is rejected, it is not open for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider the proposal of the petitioner-s-Society. They :3: relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari & others Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari & others Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari & others V. V. V. Chief Executive Officers, Slum Rehabilitation Chief Executive Officers, Slum Rehabilitation Chief Executive Officers, Slum Rehabilitation Authority Authority Authority and others, and others, and others, reported in 2006 (5) Bom. C.R. 772. The Division Bench of this Court has observed in para 20 that as per the Regulation 33(10), if 70 % of the slum dwellers on a particular area come together and apply after formation of proposed Co-operative housing society, the said application has to be independently considered in accordance with law. It has been observed that the scheme does not contemplate simultaneous consideration of such an application made by the proposed society with an application subsequently made by another proposed society relating to the same land. Relying on the same it is submitted by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 that till the proposal of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 is decided the proposal of petitioners cannot be taken into consideration. 2. As against this the learned Counsel Mr. Sathe appearing for the petitioner’s-society submitted that the the Division Bench Judgment pertains to D.C.R. 33(10) alone. Mr. Sathe has relied upon the :4: decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Ram Ram Chandra Chandra Chandra Mahadev Jagtap and others V/s Chief Executive Mahadev Jagtap and others V/s Chief Executive Mahadev Jagtap and others V/s Chief Executive Officer Officer Officer and others, and others, and others, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 661, wherein the Supreme Court has given directions to the authority to hear both the parties and decide the applications simultaneously. 3. We have heard the learned Advocates at length and also we have gone through the record. In our view since the question about finalising the scheme is pending with the Corporation, at this stage we would not like to adjudicate this aspect on merits. The learned Counsel Mr. Reis appearing for Corporation submitted that the decision is to be taken, which may be in the best interest of public at large as well as in the interest of Corporation. The decision will be taken after considering the case laws on the subject by accepting the scheme as per law. Considering the fact that at present no final decision is taken by the Corporation in this behalf, we direct the Corporation to consider the question of finalising the scheme of the respective builders in accordance with law and considering the prevailing D.C.R. and taking into account the judgments of the :5: Supreme Court as well as of this Court. At this stage, we are not adjudicating the dispute as to which scheme should be processed and in which manner. It is left to the Corporation to decide the same after considering the evidence on record and in accordance with law and Development Control Regulation for Greater Bombay, 1991. If the ultimate decision is in favour of either of the parties it is open for the affected party to challenge the same in accordance with law. 4. Subject to the aforesaid directions this petition is disposed of. 5. Considering the fact that development scheme may not be delayed further, the Corporation may take expeditious steps in this behalf without further delay. The decision is to be taken on the basis of record as it stands today as per the proposals which are received by the Corporation and it would be even open for the Corporation. (P.B. (P.B. (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) MAJMUDAR, J.) MAJMUDAR, J.) :6: ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)