IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION NO.63 OF 2008 Mr. Steven L. D'Souza ... Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Petitioner in person appeared. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader for the State. Mr. R.B. Raghuvanshi, Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India. Mr. D.D. Madon, senior advocate with Mr. S.G. Surana for the applicant in Chamber Summons No.257 of 2008. Mr. J.G. Aradwad for the respondent No.2. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & A.P DESHPANDE , J. DATE : 21ST AUGUST , 2008 P.C.: We have heard the petitioner who appears in person and the other counsel appearing for the different parties. 2. The basic grievance raised in this PIL is that the Government is acting contrary to the orders passed by the court as well as is infringing the fundamental rights of the petitioner by violating Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. This dispute primarily emerges from Annexure -II which is the very foundation of the SRA Scheme implemented in relation to Pali Pereiarawadi, F.P. No.F/650 and F652, 16th & 30th Junction, Bandra (West), Mumbai. According to the occupants, all the structures in this annexure have not been made in accordance with law. Various allegations in this regard have been made. The petition is also stated to be pending before the High Power Committee notified by the State Government in furtherance to the Full Bench judgment of this court. 3. Certain structures have been demolished without waiting for the orders of the High Power Committee and/or verification/re- verification of Annexure II. It is not necessary for us to go into various controversies that are sought to be raised in the writ petition as it would obviously require determination of the facts which require appreciation of allegations which ought to be supported by proper documentation. The scope under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited particularly when there is an efficacious and alternative remedy available to the parties concerned. In fact, hardly any controversy remains to be settled in the present case by this court for two reasons; firstly, the counsel appearing for the State has placed on record copy of the order dated 20th August, 2008 issued by the Under Secretary, Housing Development Department, Mantralay, Mumbai, stopping the further execution of SRA scheme and secondly, the petition is pending before the High Power Committee for hearing and the matter has not been finally decided as yet. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the State fairly stated that the order issued by the Government would continue and the committee would make every effort to decide the petition filed before it by the occupants of the residents of that area concerned with the appeal expeditiously. 5. We are of the considered view that the stand taken by the State is fair and no further judicial intervention is called for at this stage but for one protection which would directly affect the right to life and protection to live with dignity. Constitution mandates that for the persons whose houses/structures have been demolished, the State (Competent Authority) shall ensure that they are provided with transit/alternate accommodation and/or appropriate rent. This direction shall be complied with by the senior officer of the State personally and file compliance affidavit in this court within one week from today. Petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. 6. The State would abide by its statement made before the court today and we direct the High Power Committee to decide the matter expeditiously and in any case, not later than six weeks from today. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J.