IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.628 OF 2008 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.181 OF 2008 Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari & Ors. .... Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .....Respondents Mr.F.R.D'Vitre, Sr. Advocate a/w Pravin Samdaru, Mr.V.R.Dhond & Mr.Kamal Khata i/b Prakash & Co., for the Petitioners. Mr.Milind More, A.G.P., for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr.Rajendra Raghuvanshi, Addl. Solicitor General and Mr.J.G.Reddy, for respondent No.2. Mr.M.V.Pandey, for respondent No.6. Mr.S.D.Mogre, in support of Chamber Summons No.181 of 2008. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C. 1. By filing this petition, the petitioners have challenged the Letter of Intent, issued on 21st October, 2007 at Exh.”C” in favour of respondent Nos.5 & 6. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Letter of Intent could not have been issued in favour of the said respondents and the same is in violation of the directions given in Writ Petition No.2746 of 2005. 2 2. During the course of hearing, the learned Senior Advocate Mr.D'vitre submitted that the Letter of Intent has been issued without taking into account the directions given by the Division Bench in the aforesaid Writ Petition. He further submitted that the procedure adopted before issuing the Letter of Intent is also not proper. The learned Advocate further submitted that after the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.2746 of 2005, the Full Bench of this Court has taken the view that the High Power Committee should be constituted and the same can examine the matter in connection with the sanctioning of the scheme under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvements, Clearance and Redevelopment), Act, 1971. 3. We have heard the learned Advocates at some length. In our view, when issue in question can be examined by the High Power Committee as per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court by examining the matter on merits and going into facts of the case, it would be just and proper to direct the petitioners to approach the High Power Committee in connection with the matter in issue. Looking to the fact that the litigation is going on since long and even this Court on the earlier occasion gave certain directions in Writ Petition No.2746 of 2005, it would be just and proper that the High Power Committee should decide the issue in question within a 3 period of two months from the receipt of the application from the present petitioner. The petitioner may make necessary application within a period of two weeks from today to the High Power Committee in this regard. 4. Needless to say that the High Power Committee shall examine the issue in question and decide the same in accordance with law. The High Power Committee may also consider as to whether the directions given by this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition is complied with at the time of taking decision in connection with the issuing Letter of Intent. It will be open to both the sides to produce necessary documents before the High Power Committee. It is for the High Power Committee to take decision in accordance with law after considering the documents on record. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the issue in any manner. The High Power Committee may take appropriate decision within a period of two months from the receipt of the application from the petitioners. 5. At this stage, the learned Advocate for the petitioners requested that the status quo may continued till the High Power Committee takes decision in the matter. This request is objected by other side. However, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.6 submitted that the respondent No.6 will not take any further proceedings on the basis of Letter 4 of Intent for a period of three weeks from today. However, after three weeks, it will be open to the petitioners to request the High Power Committee for extending status quo by preferring appropriate application and the High Power Committee may consider such request on its own merits and consider as to whether the status quo is required to be continued further. In case, the status quo is not continued, it will be open to the petitioner to take appropriate recourse in this behalf in accordance with of law. It is clarified that the permission granted to the petitioners to apply for status quo before the High Power Committee may not be construed as an precedent, as this permission is granted in view of peculiar facts & circumstances of the case and as earlier the matter has already came before this Court in which certain directions were given by the Division Bench in the aforesaid writ petition. In case, ultimate decision is against any of the parties, it will be open to such party to take further recourse in accordance with law. Subject to what is stated hereinabove, the petition stands disposed of accordingly. 6. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the Chamber Summons No.181 of 2008 also stands disposed of accordingly. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )