IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) No.431 OF 2009 Kiran Baburao Vanjari & Ors ..Petitioners. ..Petitioners. ..Petitioners. vs. vs. vs. MHADA & Others ..Respondents. ..Respondents. ..Respondents. Mr Bhavesh Parmar for the Petitioners. Mr G.W.Mattos, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr C.J.Sawant a/w Mr N.S.Dhumal for Respondent No.4. Mr V.C.Ghosalkar for Respondent No.5. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR,C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR,C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR,C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 13TH APRIL,2009. DATED : 13TH APRIL,2009. DATED : 13TH APRIL,2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. The petitioners have challenged in this writ petition the order dated 27.2.2009 Exh.A annexed to the petition. 2. By consent of parties writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. Mr G.W.Mattos,learned A.G.P. for appearing Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr N.S.Dhumal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 and Mr V.C.Ghosalkar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 respectively waive service. 4. There are various grounds of challenge in the present writ petition including that the principles of natural justice are violated before passing the impugned order. 70% of the total members of the society were not present and have not supported scheme of development. They should have taken the total members of the society and not the residents of the area within development. The provisions of Section 95-A of the MHADA the are not attracted in the present case. 5. We are not impressed with any of the contentions made before us in the circumstances of the case; firstly, the petitioners had filed a civil suit raising the same controversy and no interim order is granted to the petitioners. Thereafter, they approached to ( 3 ) the Co-operative Court. There also they failed to get any interim order. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 7389 of 2008 which is stated to be pending and Rule had been issued without any interim order. This by itself is sufficient ground for us not to interfere in the present writ petition. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the factual matrix in relation to the number of members ( 70% not supporting the scheme) ought to have been raised before the Co-operative Court which is the most appropriate court for adjudication of the matter. Since the special Court created under the law has declined to interfere, the petitioners cannot take benefit of extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As far as the provisions of Section 95 A of the MHADA are concerned, certainly they were introduced subsequently while the application had been moved and permission was granted in the year 2006 by MHADA but the fact of the matter remains that even till today the scheme ( 4 ) has not been implemented. There cannot be any dispute to that effect. 6. In affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Society it has been specifically averred that the petitioners, particularly, petitioner Nos. 3, 5 and 8 have attended the general body meeting of the society dated 17.4.2005 and were party to the proceeding of the meeting. It has also been stated that among the other members of the society 20 members out of 24 members from Chawl Nos. 20,21 and 24 have already been shifted. Even on this count, the petitioners are not entitled to seek any discretionary order. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.