*1* wpl.1130.11.909.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (Lodging) NO.1130 OF 2011 Subod S. Sawant. ..Petitioner -versus- S.S.Sandu, the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai and others. ..Respondents ............ The Petitioner Mr.S.S.Sawant, present in person. Mr.S.G.Surana, for the Respondent Nos.5 and 7. Mr.D.A.Nalawade, Government Pleader, for the Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65. ............ CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 18th October, 2011. P.C.: 1 Here the Petitioner has been held eligible for the benefits under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The Petitioner refused to cooperate and that is why the competent authority was approached by the Society as also the Developer to evict the Petitioner. The present Petitioner has raised the same contentions as have been raised by the Petitioners in Writ Petitions (Lodging) Nos.1128/2011 and 1129/2011 which have been dismissed today by a separate order. The Petitioner cannot, in writ jurisdiction, take a stand that he should be given benefits of the scheme and at the same time challenge it on the ground that it is invalid, illegal and unenforceable. The Petitioner must either challenge the scheme itself by instituting appropriate proceedings and have a declaration in his favour. Once he makes a request that he should be given benefits under the scheme as he has been held eligible, then, it is his plain duty to *2* wpl.1130.11.909.sxw cooperate in the implementation of the scheme and not adopt a stand whereunder he has to be forcibly evicted. The Petitioner has also been provided with transit accommodation. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the Society, as also, the Developer have assured the Court that the Petitioner will be provided with permanent alternate accommodation on the ground floor of the new rehab building which would be to the extent of 225 sq.ft. and that is ready and can be handed over to the Petitioner. 3 The Petitioner still insists that he wants to challenge the orders of the competent authority and the appellate authority, so also, this Court in a higher court. The Petitioner has raised similar contentions as raised in other petitions mentioned above. 4 For the reasons that have persuaded me not to entertain those petitions, the Petitioner in this petition is also not entitled to any relief, therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed for the same reasons as that are recorded in the order passed today in Writ Petitions (Lodging) No. 1128/2011 and 1129/2011. 5 Finding that the permanent alternate accommodation is ready for the Petitioner, his request to stay operation of this order is rejected. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)