hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 556 OF 2009 Arun Sakharam Kinwatkar ... Petitioner Versus MHADA and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. A.K. Tripathi with Mr. P.V. Dhopatkar for Petitioner. Mr. G.W. Mattos, A.G.P. For Respondents. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 04, 2010 P.C. The Petitioner has approached this court challenging Clause 5 of the Information Booklet issued by Respondent No.1 for allotment of flats constructed by MHADA. The contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioners is that by the computerized draw persons who are eligible can also apply and in this process, instances can arise, where eligible candidates are not considered and ineligible candidates are considered. We have heard the learned counsel including for MHADA. In our opinion, the applicant must satisfy certain requirements in terms of the application. It is only on the applicant satisfying the conditions that the applicant is considered for the computerized draw. It is true that at that stage there is no verification. MHADA has explained the approval by illustrating that for 3863 flats there were altogether 755693 applications. Considering the number of the flats and the number of applications, it cannot be said that the procedure followed by MHADA for having computerized draw is arbitrary. This is a case where only those who in the applications showed compliance with the requirements, whose applications were considered. It is possible that after the draw and if successful such a applicant might not be in a position to furnish the relevant documents. This does not mean that the entire process followed by the Respondent No.1 is arbitrary or illegal. Considering the above, in our opinion, in the circumstances of the case, neither clause 5 nor procedure followed by MHADA is arbitrary. We may also point out that for every flat there is one successful person and one for wait list. Consequently petition is dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)