IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION LODGING NO.2369 OF 2006 PETITION LODGING NO.2369 OF 2006 PETITION LODGING NO.2369 OF 2006 Saroj Constructions. ..Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors... ..Respondents Mr. V.B. Ghorpade, for the Petitioner Mr. Pradeep Jadhav, AGP for respondent No.1. Mr. G.D. Utangale, for respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: F.I. F.I. F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: DATE: DATE: 16TH OCTOBER,2006 16TH OCTOBER,2006 16TH OCTOBER,2006 P.C. . Respondent No.4 had appointed Respondent No.3 as the Developer pursuant to an Agreement of 1998. That agreement came to be terminated on 10th January, 2004 and respondent No.4 appointed one M/s.Midas Builders as the developers. The respondent No.2 after hearing the respondent No.3 and M/s.Midas Builders have approved the appointment of Respondent No.4. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as developers by the society in the year 2000. We are unable to comprehend as to how the petitioners could be appointed as developers when there was a subsisting contract by respondent No.4 with respondent No.3 and which contract was terminated only on 10th January, 2004. Considering the above, we find no merit in the case of the petitioners,which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (F.I. (F.I. (F.I. REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) REBELLO, J) (ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA,J). V. MOHTA,J). V. MOHTA,J).