1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2025 OF 2004 WITH PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.76 OF 2007 Appa Pada Rahivasi Seva Sangh .. Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents. Mr.Mahesh Londhe i/by M/s.S. Udeshi & Co. for the petitioner in W.P. No.2025/04. Mr.Santosh Narawade i/by Mr.M.M. Vashi for the petitioner in PIL 76/07. Mr.D.A. Nalawade for the State. Mr.Suresh Patil i/by Utangale & Co. for SRA. Mr.Vaibhav Sughdare for respondent No.5. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 24th January, 2008 DATED : 24th January, 2008 DATED : 24th January, 2008 P.C. : 1. In P.I.L. No.76 of 2007, praecipe has been moved on behalf of the petitioner, as a result whereof Writ Petition No.2025 of 2004 has also been listed before this Court. It is stated before us that there is some misunderstanding with regard to the time postulated in clause 4 (ii) of order dated 10-1-2008. The petitioners have prayed period to be granted by the Court for deposit of money as six weeks and not two 2 weeks as recorded in the order. We find no occasion to entertain such a contention. The order is clear and unambiguous and we see no reason for any misunderstanding arising out of the order in question and this praecipe is moved on 21-1-2008 when the order was passed on 10-1-2008. Be that as it may and despite our above observations, we are inclined to grant a final opportunity to the persons who are eligible in terms of the policy of the State to deposit the money in terms of clause 4(ii) within one week from today. We make it clear that no further extension will be granted for this purpose and in any circumstances, the Government shall not accept any payment thereafter. 2. This direction is necessitated as ultimately the judgment of this Court has to be taken to its logical end. The Court cannot keep on passing orders which are not implemented by the State. The State must discharge its statutory obligation and also ensure that orders of the Court are implemented in their true spirit and substance. 3. The Petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.305 of 1995 which is already disposed of by this Court points out that the Government is not taking any action despite the fact that 11000 square metres of land has already been acquired by the Government at 3 Kalyan, where considerable amount of approximately Rs.12 crores has been provided for infrastructure. However, the petitioners contend that the site has now been shifted to Chandivli. 4. The Government is expected to act and implement the rehabilitation scheme without any further delay. We have already made it clear that no further time would be allowed for compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 10-1-2008 as well as previous orders passed by the different Benches of this Court. The Government should take steps to rehabilitate the people at the appropriate site and even if now there is increase in the number of eligible persons to be accommodated under the rehabilitation scheme, as per the prescribed criteria, obviously the Government has place at Kalyan as well as at Chandivli. 5. List this matter for compliance before this Court on 27th March, 2008. CHIEF JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR, J.