-: 1 :- wp-879/10. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 879 OF 2010. Ramkutir Co-op. Hsg. Society Pvt. Ltd & Anr. ..Petitioners. Versus Bombay Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Others. ..Respondents. Ms. Alpana Ghone i/b Sonal Doshi & Co., for the petitioners. Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar for BMC. Mr. Gaurav Joshi i/b Thakore Jariwala & Co., for respondent nos. 11 to 13. Ms. Uma Palsuledesai, AGP. Coram : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. Date : September 13, 2010. P. C. : 1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed that the sanctioned plans and the construction of A & B Wings of Ramkutir Co-operative Housing Society Ltd be declared illegal. The petitioners have also prayed that a direction be issued for demolition of the said two Wings. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. We have also heard learned counsel for respondent nos. 11 to 13 and learned counsel for the Corporation. Admittedly, the petitioners have filed suit against respondent 11- the developers and others, being S. C. srp -: 2 :- wp-879/10. S. No. 2087 of 2005 in City Civil Court at Bombay. We deem it appropriate to quote prayer clauses (l) to (o) made in the said suit, which are as follows : “(l) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the Defendant no.1 is not entitled to use the suit property described in Exhibit-A hereto plot and or its FSI or TDR for any purpose whatsoever. (m) that by the prohibitory order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court be pleased to restrain the defendant no.1 from utilzing the Suit Property described in Exhibit-A hereto and or its FSI or TDR. (n) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare the defendant no.1 have ceased to have any right to further develop the Suit Property described in Exhibit-A hereto and sell the flats thereon to the third party and the defendants be permanently restrained from carrying out any construction activity on the Suit Property described in Exhibit-A hereto. (o) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to permanently restrain the defendant no.1 from in any manner selling, transferring, encumbering or creating third party interest in respect of flats, shops, tenements, etc., in the new building being constructed by the defendant no.1 on the suit plots.” 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that in the suit the petitioners are seeking a direction against the builders asking them to carry out their obligation under the Maharashtra Apartment -: 3 :- wp-879/10. Ownership Flats (Regulations of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act 1963 (for short “MOFA”). That suit is for enforcement of the builders obligations. She submitted that in this petition the petitioners have challenged the validity of sanction plan. Hence filing of the suit will not come in the way of the petitioners in getting reliefs prayed for in this petition. 3. It is not possible for us to accept this contention. We find that in this petition also the petitioners have raised substantially the same contentions. It is contended that the amended plans in respect of the property, which were originally sanctioned in 1999, were sanctioned by the Corporation without the consent of the members of the petitioners as provided under section 7 of the MOFA. It is contended that buildings are illegally constructed on the mandatory open spaces, i.e., on recreation ground. It is also contended that the Corporation has no right to sanction TDR upon land reserved for recreation ground and car park. Prayers of the suit which we have quoted hereinabove reflect that issues which are raised in the suit overlap the issues which are raised in the petition. 4. Besides, we are informed that the plans were sanctioned as far as back in the year 2005. The petition which is filed on 8/3/2010, therefore suffers from gross laches. Admittedly, the said two Wings are -: 4 :- wp-879/10. complete, Occupation Certificate has been granted in respect thereof and the flat purchasers are occupying the said two Wings. In our opinion, in such circumstances, the petition cannot be entertained. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. (R.V. More, J.) (Smt. Ranjana Desai,J.)