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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 2057 OF 2007 Jagdish D. Patel. .. Petitioner. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. K.A. Patil i/by Deven Dwarkadas & Partners for Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Jadhav, AGP., for Respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. R.M. Kadam, Sr. Adv., i/by Kishore Thakordas & Co. for Respondent No. 7. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & K.K. TATED, JJ. K.K. TATED, JJ. K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 31ST JULY, 2008. DATE: 31ST JULY, 2008. DATE: 31ST JULY, 2008. P.C. . The petitioner has once again approached this Court by invoking its extra-ordinary jurisdiction seeking quashing and setting aside of the NOC dated 12.7.1991 granted in favour of the respondent to redevelop the property. The subject issue was earlier agitated in this Court by filing writ petition no. 339 of 1992 which came to be disposed of by judgement and 2 order dated 17.3.1992. Thereafter a Letters Patent Appeal being Appeal Lodging No. 253 of 1992 was filed in the matter which also came to be dismissed by order dated 13.4.1992. Thereafter writ petition no. 168 of 1998 came to be filed which was also rejected by a Division Bench of this Court presided over by the then Chief Justice on 27.3.1998. Not only that, the petitioner has approached this Court on repeated occasions but also has filed a civil suit in the Bombay City Civil Court i.e. L.C. Suit No. 3990 of 1992 which has been dismissed for want of prosecution. In these facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. This is nothing but abuse of the process of this Court. We are informed that but for the petitioner all the other tenants/occupiers of the building have vacated and the project is held up as the petitioner has failed to vacate his premises though he has been offered alternate accommodation as per the scheme of redevelopment acceptable to all other tenants. In these facts and circumstances, we dismiss the petition. 2. We are informed that the petition under Section 95 - A of the MHADA Act filed before MHADA is pending. The interested parties may approach MHADA to get the said application disposed of in accordance with law. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) 3 ( K.K. Tated, J.) ( K.K. Tated, J.) ( K.K. Tated, J.)