1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1617 OF 2009 Dattaprasad Shriram Mantri ....Petitioner. Versus The Maharashtra State Road Corporation ....Respondent. Shri. S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. B.B. Yenge, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 18th JUNE, 2009 PER COURT : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the orders and findings arrived by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ambajogai dated 15th December 2008, thereby rejecting the application, Exh. 5, filed by the present petitioner and by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Ambajogai dated 23rd of January 2009, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. 2. Shri. S.P. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits 2 that the petitioner is handicap person and in view of the earlier policy, the petitioner cannot be evicted from the suit premises. He further submits that in view of the conditions stipulated in circular of 1990 the petitioner cannot be evicted without giving notice prior to six months. 3. From the concurrent findings, it can be seen that no legal right is vested in the petitioner for continuation in the premises. It can be seen that in view of change in policy the respondent Corporation has invited tenders for allotment of S.T.D. booths. Since the petitioner has no vested right to continue in the premises, no infirmity could be found in the approach adopted by both the Courts below to warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. So far as the second contention of the petitioner is concerned, it is settled law that a person cannot be evicted without following due process of law. In that view of the matter, no substance is found in the submissions in that regard also. 5. Needless to say that the interim relief granted earlier stands vacated. [ B.R. GAVAI, J. ] ssc/wp1617.09