1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOBBY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1852 OF 2005 Murlidhar R.Maurya ... Petitioner Vs. The Chief Executive Officer and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.D.Mishra for Petitioner. Mr. Abhijeet Wagh i/by Utangale & Co. for R. No.1. Mr. P.G. Sawant, A.G.P. for R.Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. S.K. Sen with Mr. Akshay Vani for R. No. 5. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. ANOOP V. MOHTA,JJ. DATED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 DATED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 DATED: SEPTEMBER 12, 2006 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Petitioners approached this court to contend that he should be allotted two separate premises i.e. one residential and one commercial. The Petitioner’s’ name figures in the annexure 2 wherein he is allotted premises as commercial/residential. The Petitioner aggrieved by the same, preferred appeal before the S.R.A. The S.R.A. after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was not able to prove that he was having independent commercial premises as on 1.1.1995 and held the Petitioner to be entitled for residential and commercial use as per Sr.Nos. 309 of Annexure 2. In the present petition, that order has not been challenged. Considering there is finding of fact by 2 the Authority and that the order is before us which only would disclose recording a finding of fact and as the Petitioners are unable to show any error of law, apparent on the face of the record, no interference is called for. Petition rejected. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)