wp-lod-373-374-11.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION LOD.NO.373 OF 2011 Yawar Husain Gulam Husain Oomatia & Ors .. Petitioners Versus Mumbai Building Repair & Reconstruction Board & Ors .. Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION LOD.NO.374 OF 2011 Smt.Farida Anwar .. Petitioner Versus Mumbai Building Repair & Reconstruction Board & Ors .. Respondents Mr.P.S.Sethi for the petitioner. Ms.Mugdha Jadhav, A.G.P for the State. Mr.G.W.Mattos for MMRDA. Mrs.T.H.Puranik for B.M.C. Mr.Y.E.Mooman for respondent No.4. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 25th FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. . Mentioned. Not on board. Taken up for admission forthwith. Heard. 2 Mr.Mattos, appearing for the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, which is a unit of MHADA, on wp-lod-373-374-11.doc 2 instructions states that what has been challenged in these petitions is notice cum order under section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 dated 17th February 2011. He further states that this communication is a show cause notice and be treated as such. If the petitioners reply to the same within a period of seven days from today, on receipt of the said reply, the competent authority will hear them and pass a reasoned order. 3 In the light of this statement of Mr.Mattos made on instructions, I do not see any basis in the apprehension of Mr.Sethi that the petitioners would be forcibly evicted from the premises in their possession. Needless further to state that if the petitioners do not show cause and file a reply within a period of seven days, the authorities can proceed to evict the petitioners. If a reply is filed, competent authority shall hear the petitioners personally and thereafter pass a reasoned order as stated by Mr.Mattos. The petitions are disposed off in these terms. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)