1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2276 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2276 OF 2005 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2276 OF 2005 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.7900 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.7900 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.7900 OF 2004 Navi Mumbai Kanda Batata Adat Vyapari Seva Sangh ...Applicants/ Petitioners Vs. Mumbai Agricultural Produce Market Committee Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.P.M.Khankar Adv. for Applicants Mr. N.N. Bhadrashete Adv. for Respondents CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & SMT.R.S.DALVI,JJ. SMT.R.S.DALVI,JJ. SMT.R.S.DALVI,JJ. DATED: 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2005 DATED: 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2005 DATED: 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Khankar in support of this 1. Heard Mr. Khankar in support of this 1. Heard Mr. Khankar in support of this Application seeking review of the order which we Application seeking review of the order which we Application seeking review of the order which we passed on Writ Petition No.8323 of 2004 and other passed on Writ Petition No.8323 of 2004 and other passed on Writ Petition No.8323 of 2004 and other Petitions on 12th July,2005. Mr. Khankar has tried Petitions on 12th July,2005. Mr. Khankar has tried Petitions on 12th July,2005. Mr. Khankar has tried to contend that the demolition of the delapidated to contend that the demolition of the delapidated to contend that the demolition of the delapidated structures was not required. As far as this aspect is structures was not required. As far as this aspect is structures was not required. As far as this aspect is concerned appropriate reports of the Architects were concerned appropriate reports of the Architects were concerned appropriate reports of the Architects were considered by the Division Benches earlier and there considered by the Division Benches earlier and there considered by the Division Benches earlier and there is no difficulty in saying that they are required to is no difficulty in saying that they are required to is no difficulty in saying that they are required to be demolished. The only question which was argued be demolished. The only question which was argued be demolished. The only question which was argued before us was that the row-shops on the side of the before us was that the row-shops on the side of the before us was that the row-shops on the side of the Vashi-Turbhe Road will reduce the width of the Vashi-Turbhe Road will reduce the width of the Vashi-Turbhe Road will reduce the width of the internal road. We accepted that submission of the internal road. We accepted that submission of the internal road. We accepted that submission of the Petitioners and directed the Market Committee to first Petitioners and directed the Market Committee to first Petitioners and directed the Market Committee to first 2 construct the ‘L’ type malls. We directed them to construct the ‘L’ type malls. We directed them to construct the ‘L’ type malls. We directed them to take review of their financial position at that time take review of their financial position at that time take review of their financial position at that time and then only the row-shops to be constructed. We and then only the row-shops to be constructed. We and then only the row-shops to be constructed. We cannot go into the questions which were raised before cannot go into the questions which were raised before cannot go into the questions which were raised before the earlier Division Benches. No error has been the earlier Division Benches. No error has been the earlier Division Benches. No error has been pointed in our order to call for review. The pointed in our order to call for review. The pointed in our order to call for review. The Application is dismissed. Application is dismissed. Application is dismissed. (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.) (SMT.R.S.DALVI,J.)