1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.1320 OF 2006 PETITION NO.1320 OF 2006 PETITION NO.1320 OF 2006 Rameshchandra G. Sukhani..Petitioner Vs. Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Ors. ....Respondents Ms. Betty D’Souza i/b. M/s.M.P. Vashi & Associates for the petitioner Mr. Abhijeet Wagh i/b. M/s.Utangale & Co., for the respondent No.1 Mr. Tushar Bhavsar i/b. Manojk Bhatt for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Milind More, AGP for Respondent No.4. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: F.I. F.I. F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: DATE: DATE: 27TH NOVEMBER,2006 27TH NOVEMBER,2006 27TH NOVEMBER,2006 P.C. . Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner’s name has been included in the Annexure -II, but for residential purpose. The grievance of the petitioner is that the premises are commercial premises and as such the petitioner ought to have been entitled to be granted a commercial premises. 3. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the inclusion of his name in Annexure II as residential, it will be open to the petitioner to prefer an Appeal before the Appropriate Authority (SRA) and raise 2 whatever grievance the petitioner may have. Considering that the petitioner has an alternative remedy this would not be a fit case for this Court to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Hence Writ Petition rejected. (F.I. F.I. F.I. REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) (ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA J). V. MOHTA J). V. MOHTA J).