K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2258 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2258 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.2258 OF 2008 Mr.Ashok B.Desai & Ors. )..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar Sr.Advocate with V.A.Sugadare i/by M/s.Khaitan & Jayakar for the petitioners. Mr.Jasbir Saluja AGP for respondent no.1. Mr.J.G.Reddy for respondent no.2. Mr.K.K.Singhvi Sr.Counsel with Mrs.S.M.Modale for respondent nos.3 & 4. ---- Coram : D.K.Deshmukh & Coram : D.K.Deshmukh & Coram : D.K.Deshmukh & R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 6.5.2009. PC 1. This Writ petition deserves to be dismissed for many reasons. The first and foremost reason is that the petitioners have obviously been put up by builder who wants to make money out of the project for rehabilitation of slum dwellers. The land admittedly belong to the Corporation. Government and Corporation have taken policy decision that they will themselves develope the land and according to the existing law, give the petitioners accomodation to which they are entitled under the law in the building to be constructed. Corporation has also : 2 : stated before us that they will implement and complete the project as expeditiously as possible, approximately within a period of two years and that till the project is completed the slum dwellers who are eligible, will also be given transit accomodation at the same site. On behalf of the Corporation it has also been stated before us that in developing the land, the Corporation will not involve any developer and that the Corporation will develope the land on its own by engaging necessary contractor. In our opinion, this fully protects the interest of the slum dwellers who are petitioners. The petitioners however, are raising question regarding some disparity in the copies of the two minutes of the meeting dated 1.7.2008. In our opinion, even assuming that there is some disparity, the disparity is not in relation to decision to develop the land by the Corporation but the disparity is in relation to reason why Corporation has taken the decision to develope the land itself. We find that the Corporation decided to take up the development of the land itself, so that it can accomodate in the building to be constructed, some persons who have been displaced because of the works undertaken by the Corporation in public interest as also the slum dwellers who are sitting on the land and also because there is reservation for hospital on the land. In our opinion, the decision of the Corporation and Government is bonafide. So far as : 3 : slum dwellers are concerned, their interest is in the rehabilitation. That aspect is fully taken care of. In our opinion, even assuming that there are some irregularities involved as, we find that interest of the petitioners are fully protected, therefore, no interference is called for with the order impugned. Petition rejected. (D.K.Deshmukh,J) (D.K.Deshmukh,J) (D.K.Deshmukh,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)