(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.882 OF 2007 Akhil Bhartiya General Kamgar Union............................Petitioner Versus The Collector, Mumbai Suburban District & Ors..................Respondents Mr. V.N. Tayade i/b. Rajesh Gehani, for the petitioner Mr. G.D. Utangale, for respondent No.4. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATED: 2ND AUGUST, 2007 DATED: 2ND AUGUST, 2007 DATED: 2ND AUGUST, 2007 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Learned Counsel holding for Advocate Shri Rajesh Gehani seeks adjournment on the ground that Shri Gehani is physically unwell. We have perused the papers. In our opinion considering the controversy there is no necessity to adjourn the matter. 2. The petitioners claim right under the S.R.A. Scheme. They have an Agreement with the respondent No.6. It appears that their entitlement for rehabilitation has not yet been decided by the Competent Authority, who is respondent No.1. In the light of that this petition is disposed of by issuing the following directions:- (-2-) (i) If the entitlement of the petitioners is not decided the petitioners within 15 days from today to apply to the respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 on considering the application to dispose of the same according to law at any rate within eight weeks thereafter. (ii) If the entitlement is already decided then the respondent No.4 to act in terms of law. (iii) Rule made absolute accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)