1 caf100 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.100 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.62 OF 2011 Lata Sanjeeva Samala ...Applicant vs. Kiran Shankar Erabathini & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Shishir Joshi for the applicant Mr.Chirag Shah i/b Mr.J.J.Shah for the respondent nos.1 to 5 Mr.G.V.Mattos, A.G.P for respondent no.6 Mr.Vinod Mahadik for respondent no.7 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 1, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel for respondent no.6. Perused the affidavit filed by the Officer of the respondent no.6. By the impugned decree, the respondent no.6 has been directed to perform statutory obligation under section 88(3) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act,1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Prima facie, it appears to me that decree of such drastic nature could not have been passed by the Trial Court. 2 The affidavit of the respondent no.6 shows that the respondent no.6 has taken the steps as per the provisions of the said Act. 3 Though a case for grant of stay is made out, it is necessary to clarify that it is always open for the respondent no.6 to exercise statutory powers in 2 caf100 accordance with law. If the respondent no.6 is satisfied that action in accordance with law deserves to be taken, the respondent no.6 is free to do so notwithstanding the grant of stay. 4 Hence, application is disposed of by passing the following order : i) There will be interim stay of operation and execution of clause (1) of operative part of the impugned decree. However, notwithstanding the grant of stay, it will be open for the respondent no.6 to exercise all powers under the statute and to proceed in accordance with law. JUDGE