Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1446 OF 2009 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.352 OF 2009 Shantaram Vittal Malap & 9 ors. ... Petitioners versus The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies and 5 ors. ... Respondents. WITH CONTEPT PETITION NO.72 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1379 OF 2005 John F D’Costa and ors. ... Petitioners versus Maharashtra Bandiwadekar of M/s. S B Brothers Developers & Anr. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1450 OF 2009 John F D’Costa and 7 ors. ... Petitioners versus The Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority & Anr. ... Respondents. Ms Gunjan Shah i/by Mr. S A Sawant for the Petitioners Mr. A A Kumbhakoni with Mr. D A Narawade and Mr. J G Reddy for the Respondents/SRA Mr. V A Thorat, Sr. Advocate i/by Umashankar Upadhyay for the Respondents/Developers. Mr. M S Doctor i/by Ms. Yasmin Bhansali for the Applicant in Chamber Summons No.352 of 2009. Mr. S A Sawant for the Petitioners CORAM : J N PATEL & C L PANGARKAR, J DATED : 15th FEBRUARY 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. Only grievance of the Petitioners now is that the tenements which have been allocated to the Petitioners are not in habitable condition and the permissions such as Completion Certificate, Full Occupation Certificate, the various NOC required from BSES/MSEB and the Fire Brigade and conditions under the I.O.A, L.O.I and the deficiencies shown by the SRA Authorities in their letters dated 13th December 2005 and 22nd March, 2006 are not complied with. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the SRA Authorities states that there are 68 occupants in building “B” where the tenements are allocated to the Petitioners and all the required certificates have been issued so also the occupation certificate and there is no legal impediment in occupying the tenements allocated to the Petitioners. 3. It appears that the main grievance of the Petitioners is in respect of quality of construction of the tenements. The Petitioners can always get the tenements repaired to their expectation by appointing a proper architect and/or civil engineer and/or contractor and claim damages from the Respondents, particularly from the developer, if at all they are entitled for better accommodation under the scheme. 4. In view of this, the grievance made by the Petitioners in the petitions filed by them has been complied with. This Court in its writ jurisdiction do not entertain disputed question of fact, as regards quality of construction of the tenements which is a separate issue for which the Petitioners can take recourse to the remedy available to them under law. With these observations the petitions stand dismissed. 5. So far as Contempt Petition No.72 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. No.1379 of 2005 is concerned, it is de-linked from the Petitions and be placed before the appropriate bench for final hearing and disposal. 6. In view of dismissal of the petitions, the Chamber Summons No.352 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.1446 of 2009 does not survive and the same are accordingly disposed of. (J N Patel, J) (C L Pangarkar, J)P