1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INT. LITIGATION NO.42 OF 2010 Suresh Dhondiram Keserkar .. Petitioner Versus Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority .. Respondent Mr.U.B.Nighot for petitioner Mr.A.C.Tamhane i/b. Tamhane & Co. for respondent No.4. CORAM : J.N.PATEL, Actg.C.J. & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 24th June 2010. P.C.: 1] This public interest litigation has been filed by one Suresh Dhondiram Keserkar, who has sought directions of this Court to take appropriate action against respondent No.4, who is carrying out slum redevelopment scheme on plot No.252, C.T.S.5720, Ghatkopar (East). 2] It is the grievance of the petitioner that the development activities have been carried out contrary to the Development Control Rules and the Developer has adopted mal-practices inasmuch as he has failed to execute development agreement with respondent No.3 and the tenaments are 2 being allotted to persons who are not eligible. 3] On notice, Counsel for respondent No.4 has appeared and drawn our attention to the fact that the subject matter of this PIL is already under scrutiny of the High Powered Committee and, therefore, the slum rehabilitation scheme pertaining to the subject land cannot be said to be illegal or unauthorised or contrary to the D.C. Rules. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.4 furnishes a copy of the order passed by High Powered Committee. The same is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. It is pointed out to us that the petitioner is the son of one of the beneficiary of the scheme. 4] In view of the fact that the slum rehabilitation project is being monitored by the Authorities under the Slum Rehabilitation Act, it will not be proper for this Court to entertain this petition in public interest involving the same subject matter as it amounts to multiciplicity of litigation and possibility of conflicting orders in the matter, cannot also be ruled out, which may result in miscarriage of justice. It is not that the petitioner was not aware of the fact. In fact it appears that petitioner has filed this PIL for his self-gain. Therefore, the petition is dismissed with 3 caution that in future the petitioner takes up such issues in the guise of public interest, this Court will award exemplary costs to the aggrieved party. Petition dismissed accordingly. ( Actg. CHIEF JUSTICE ) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)