1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE WRIT PETITION {LODGING} NO.598 OF 2010 Shivaji Kashiram Patankar & Ors. .... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Shri A.N. Jakhadi for the Petitioners. S/Shri D.A. Nalawade, GP, with G.W. Mattos, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Ms V.S. Gharpure for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. Shri P.G. Karande for Respondent No.6. S/Shri D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate i/b V.S. Kapse for Respondent No.7. Shri O.J. Menezes for Respondent No.8. CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED: MARCH 29, 2010 P.C: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have come to this Court for the limited relief that respondent No.1 should be directed to give hearing to the 2 petitioners in respect of redevelopment of the suit property bearing F.P.No.580, TPS-IV of Mahim Division, Dadar (W), Mumbai, which is being carried out by the Society i.e., Lokmanya Nagar Priyadarshini Co-operative Housing Society Limited of tenement holders of MHADA before passing any final order in respect of redevelopment of the suit property by amalgamating DCR 33(7) and DCR 33(9) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991. 3. It is submitted that out of the petitioners before this Court, petitioner Nos. 9, 13, 28, 29 and 31 are not the members of the Society or tenants of any tenement which is the subject-matter of redevelopment and petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 14, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 30 have already entered into a tripartite agreement with the Society and the builder. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that respondent No.8-M/s. Vadgama Builders are ready to offer better terms and conditions in redevelopment of the suit property as the scheme is being amalgamated and, therefore, the petitioners are aggrieved in the matter. 3 5. It is brought to our notice that the petitioners have initiated disputes in the matter in the City Civil Court as well as in the Co-operative Court wherein the issues raised in this petition are being adjudicated. 6. It is not in dispute that the scheme of redevelopment is proposed to be altered and the redevelopment of the said Society, which was proposed under the provisions of DCR 33(7) is now being sought to be revised from DCR 33(7) to DCR 33(9), which is pending for approval. 7. In our view, if the petitioners have any right in the matter, they are free to agitate the same in the litigation pending before the City Civil Court and the Co- operative Court as individually they have no locus standi to be heard by respondent No.1 in respect of the amalgamation of DCR 33(7) and DCR 33(9) as the interest of the members of the Society will be protected in the scheme and so far as the decision is concerned, same has to be taken by the State in the matter of the proposal made at the instance of MHADA which is evident from the letter at Exhibit-A to the 4 petition. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. The petition is dismissed. J.N. PATEL, J. A.P. BHANGALE, J.