1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE Writ Petition No.469 of 2007 Mukund Mohan Dave & anr. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents With Writ Petition No.470 of 2007 Vinod Dalchand Jain (Rathod) Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents With Writ Petition No.478 of 2007 Tapasya Dave & anr. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. Respondents Mr.K.K.Tated for petitioners. Mr.Kuldeep S.Patil for respondent nos.2 and 4. Mr.K.R.Belosey, AGP with Ms.Mugdha Jadhav for resp. nos.1 & 3 in W.P.Nos.469 & 478 of 2007. Ms.Mugdha Jadhav for resp.nos.1 & 3 in W.P.No.470 of 2007. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & S.R.SATHE, JJ. June 6, 2007. P.C. . The relief sought for in these petitions is common in asmuchas the petitioners are seeking 2 directions against the respondent nos.2 and 4 to provide alternate accommodation in lieu of their affected area which the respondents are likely to acquire as per the notices received by the petitioners. We are informed that similar relief was also sought in Writ Petition No.431 of 2007 by one of the petitioners before us and the said petition came to be disposed off on 24/4/2007 on the basis of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 4. . Mr.Kuldeep S.Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 and 4 states that the said respondents shall examine the eligibility of petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today as per the prevailing rules and the policy and if the petitioners are found eligible, the respondents shall allot them alternate accommodation. This statement is recorded and accepted. . The decision taken by the respondent nos.2 and 4 pursuant to the above stated undertaking, shall be communicated to the petitioners in writing within one week therefrom. 3 . Save and except the above directions, the petitions are disposed off. (S.R.SATHE,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)