SRK １ wp-679-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 679 OF 2010 Lokhandwala Infrastructure (P) Ltd. and another. ... Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Mr. Abhijit Mar4athe i/by M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the petitioners. Mr.G.D. Uttangale for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Ms. V.S. Gharpure for BMC. Mr. Atul Rajadhayksh, Senior Advocate with Mr. C.N. Gole for respondent No. 5. Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Upadhayay for respondent No.6. Mr. S.G. Surana for respondent No.4. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader with Milind More, Assistant Government Pleader for State-respondent No.1. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Monday, October 4, 2010 P .C. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the notice dated 25th February, 2010 issued by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. 2. By the impugned notice, all that the SRA has done is to inform the chief promotor and other promotors of the proposed Shiv Ganesh Co-operative Housing Society that the general body meeting of the members of the society was to be held on 12th March, 2010 in the presence of the representative of the authority. A meeting of all the eligible members of the society in the presence of the representative of the Co-operative section of the authority was convened to ascertain/decide as to which developer has the consent/support for the development of the scheme of the members. SRK ２ wp-679-10 3. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 makes it clear that the petitioner has also been requested to attend the meeting which was earlier scheduled to be held on 12th March, 2010, but which could not be held on account of the ad-interim stay granted by this court on 11th March, 2010. 4. Since the impugned notice does not purport to decide the rights of any party and the petitioners are going to get an opportunity to express their views, we find that the petition is premature and we dispose of this petition without going into the merits of the grounds sought to be raised therein. All contentions are kept open. 5. Since the meeting scheduled to be held on 12th March, 2010 had to be postponed on account of the ad-interim stay granted by this Court and said stay is being vacated by this order, we direct respondent No.3 to indicate another date for the meeting to be convened. 6. Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. The ad-interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. CHIEF JUSTICE SMT. S.R. SONDURBALDOTA, J.