IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2249 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2249 OF 2005 PETITION NO. 2249 OF 2005 Muthumariamman Rahivashi Sangham and another. ... Petitioners Versus. State of Maharashtra & others. ... Respondents. Shri Milind Sathe with Shri R.L.Tolat i/by M/s.L.C.Tolat & Co.for the Petitioners. Shri Pradeep Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4. Ms.P.A.Purandare for Respondents Nos.5 and 6. Shri M.M.Vashi for Respondent No.7. CORAM CORAM CORAM : H.L.GOKHALE, & : H.L.GOKHALE, & : H.L.GOKHALE, & ABHAY ABHAY ABHAY S. OKA, JJ. S. OKA, JJ. S. OKA, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 2nd MARCH, 2006. : 2nd MARCH, 2006. : 2nd MARCH, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Shri Sathe appearing with Shri Tolat for the Petitioner. Shri Jadhav, A.G.P. appears for Respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4. Shri Utangale appears for Respondent No.2. Ms.Purandare appears for Respondents Nos.5 and 6 and Shri Vashi appears for Respondent No.7. 2. The first Petitioner claims to be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and claims to have some 850 slum dwellers on a plot of land at Malad (West) as its members. The 2nd Petitioner is a developer with whom the 1st Petitioner society is supposed to have entered into an agreement. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though they are : 2 : 2 : 2 : having such large membership from amongst the hutment dwellers on the concerned plot, it is Respondent No.8-society which is permitted to develop the scheme under D.C.Regulation 33(10) with the assistance of Respondent No.7-developer. 3. It is material to note that the concerned plot of land belongs to the 5th Respondent-Municipal Corporation which has acquired it. Shri Utangale appearing for Respondent No.2 informs that annexure I had been submitted by Respondent No.8-society with more than 70% membership long back and Annexure II has been approved by the Municipal Corporation after due scrutiny. It is material to note that though the 1st Petitioner claims to have some 850 members, no list of any such members is annexed to the petition. In any case those who are held non-eligible have a right to appeal to the SRA. Those who do not join the concerned society have also a right to get 225 sq.ft. area in the reconstructed building. This is the only right that any of these slum dwellers have. So the society on its own cannot have any better right nor can any developer on their behalf. 4. Shri Sathe, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners makes a grievance that no information is being given by the SRA. It is for the Petitioners to approach SRA to get copy of the Annexure II or whatever : 3 : 3 : 3 : document that they want. Shri Utangale states that if any such application is made, necessary information will be given. 5. Shri Sathe states that a representation has been made by the 1st Petitioner-society for being considered for developing the scheme. If Annexure I and Annexure II are already issued obviously no such second scheme can be considered. In any way the SRA will send an appropriate reply. 6. Petition is rejected. (H.L.Gokhale, J.) (Abhay S.Oka, J.)