1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5184 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 5184 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 5184 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6997 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6997 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6997 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9020 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9020 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9020 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 9021 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9021 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9021 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 5184 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 5184 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 5184 OF 2007 Mubarak Husenmiya Allimiya. .. Petitioner. vs. City & Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Anr. .. Respondents. WRIT PETITION NO. 6997 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6997 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 6997 OF 2007 Gulam Kadir. .. Petitioner. vs. City & Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Anr. .. Respondents. WRIT PETITION NO. 9020 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9020 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9020 OF 2007 2 Insanali Ilakedar Shaikh. .. Petitioner. vs. City & Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Anr. .. Respondents. WRIT PETITION NO. 9021 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9021 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 9021 OF 2007 Asgar Ali Shaikh. .. Petitioner. vs. City & Industrial Development Corporation Limited & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr. R.P. Lote for Petitioners. Mr. G.S. Hegde for Respondent no.1. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 11TH MARCH, 2008. DATE: 11TH MARCH, 2008. DATE: 11TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. . Our attention has been drawn to the fact that a Division Bench of this Court on 27th November, 2007 dismissed the writ petition of Shri Mohamad Ali Jainulla Shaikh i.e. Writ Petition No. 3409 of 2007 by observing :- 3 "In view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 415 of 1991 passed on 27th August, 1992, where the Petitioner admittedly was the party, the present petition cannot be entertained. It is rejected." The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another Bench of this Court has considered the case of the petitioners similarly placed. We find that despite of repeated offers being given by respondent CIDCO on different occasions, the petitioners did not avail of the same and after almost 20 years the petitioners are approaching this Court for seeking identical relief. Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain the petitions not only for the reasons given by the earlier Division Bench which we have quoted above but also on the ground of delay and laches. We, therefore, dismiss all these petitions. 2. We may make it clear that in case the petitioners approach the respondent CIDCO and offer the prevailing market price, we find no reason why the respondent CIDCO should not give them preferential treatment in allotting the available flats/plots. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) 4 (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)