ssp 1 WP 1803 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1803 OF 2010 Bhavarlal Hemraj Purabia .....Petitioner versus The High Power Committee and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.S.G.Kudle, for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Patil, for respondent No.3. Mr.Anuj Narula i/by Jhangiani Narula and Associates, for respondent No.6. Ms.I.M.Calcuttawala, AGP, for respondent Nos.2 and 4. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 30 th AUGUST, 2011 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the High Power Committee, which is at Annexure K, by which the High Power Committee dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that the application of the present petitioner being No.133 of 2010 is hopelessly time barred as the petitioner has not challenged the order of the Slum Tribunal for four years. The High Power Committee as can be seen, has not decided the matter on merits, but rejected the same on the ground that it is time barred. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submitted that the ssp 2 WP 1803 of 2010 petitioner has no case on merits, as the documents relied upon by the petitioner are post 1995 and also in view of the fact that he has accepted the residential premises offered to him in the year 2006 and he is therefore estopped from now approaching the High Power Committee. 3. In our view, the High Power Committee should have considered the application of the petitioner on its own merits and should have decided whether the petitioner is entitled to the residential/commercial premises or not. Since the petitioner’s case has not been decided by the High Power Committee on merits, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to the High Power Committee and the High Power Committee may consider the rival claims on merits. It is clarified that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and it is for the High Power Committee to decide the application of the petitioner de novo. Before taking any decision, notice may be given to the respondent No.6 and his say may also be taken into consideration while considering the application of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 pointed out that the petitioner has already accepted residential premises as back as in the year 2005. However, it is for the High Power Committee to consider all these aspects in accordance with law. The High Power Committee may take fresh decision within a period of three months from today. ssp 3 WP 1803 of 2010 4. In the light of what is stated hereinabove, the writ petition to stand disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )