1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1636 OF 2008 1.Manish Exports Pvt.Ltd. & anr. ...Petitioners Vs. 1.The State of Maharashtra and others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.J.Dwarkadas, Sr.Advocate @ Mr.Gaurav Joshi i/b. M/s.S.Pathak & Co., for Petitioners. Mr.G.W.Mattos, for Respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr.R.Jaisinghani i/b. M/s.I.C.Legal, for Respondent no.5. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 28th April, 2009. P.C.:- 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. It appears that the property which is 2 subject matter of this petition has been acquired under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act,1976, in the year 1999. Therefore, the earlier proposal submitted by the petitioners for redevelopment of the property would not survive. But it is common ground that now because of amendment in the Development Control Regulations 33(9), it is possible for the Authorities to consider the proposal for redevelopment of the property which vested in MHADA as joint venture proposal. It is also common ground that the respondent no.5 has submitted such proposal. The learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.5 stated before us that respondent no.5 is willing to work out that proposal alongwith the petitioner. 3. In our opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- The respondent nos.1 to 4 to consider the proposal that has been submitted by the respondent no.5 under the Development Control Regulation 33(9) and process it in accordance with law and communicate its decision to respondent no.5 as expeditiously as possible in any case within a period of six months 3 from today. 4. The petitioners have also challenged in the petition the acquisition of the property in the year 1999 on the ground that when the petitioners' earlier petition was pending they were informed that their proposal submitted earlier for redevelopment would be considered. So far as that aspect of the matter is concerned, in our opinion, in view of the latches involved, nothing can be done. The petitioners were informed about the decision of the Government not to cancel the acquisition, in December,2006. The present petition has been fled in July,2008. However, in our opinion, as now new proposal has been submitted which enables redevelopment of the land which vests in MHADA, the interest of justice will be served by giving above referred directions to the respondent nos. 1 to 4. 5. The petition is disposed of by directing the respondent nos.1 to 4 to consider the proposal submitted by respondent no.5 in accordance with law and communicate its decision to respondent no.5 within a period of six months from today. Rule is made absolute accordingly. The petition is disposed 4 of. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (R.S.MOHITE,J.)