1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 604 OF 2010 Orchid Buildcon Private Limited ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. M.P. Rao with Mr. V.H. Kamadi i/by M/s. VKLex & Associates for the Petitioners Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Government Pleader, for Respondent No.1 Mr. J.G. Reddy for Respondent No.2 Mr. A.P. Kulkarni for Respondent No.3 Mr. S.G. Surana for Respondent No. 4. CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE: MARCH 26, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court for seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the respondents, particularly respondents No.1 and 2, to examine the proposal of the petitioners dated 14th June, 2007 in respect of rehabilitation of slums under 2 the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 in respect of the plot bearing CTS No. 2A(Part) of Village Powai situate at Adi Shankaracharya Marg, IIT, Mumbai, which is admeasuring 8585.65 square metres. It is the case of the petitioners that respondents No. 3 and 4, in collusion, have misled the respondent-authorities in obtaining NOC for the re- development of the land, which is the subject-matter of this petition. 3. In view of the fact that the petition pertains to the dispute relating to re-development of a slum area, it will be appropriate that the petitioners approach the High Power Committee, which is constituted by the State Government pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the case of Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2008(1) Bom.C.R. 1. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that till then, the petitioners deserve to be protected against respondents No.3 and 4 from implementing the Re-development Scheme. 3 5. In our view, it would be proper for the petitioners to seek appropriate relief from the High Power Committee; and it will not be just and proper for this Court, while reverting the petitioners to the High Power Committee, to pass any interim orders as sought. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would approach the High Power Committee, and the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the petition. As observed by the Court, the petitioners would also move an application before the High Power Committee for interim relief. 7. We, therefore, permit the petitioners to withdraw the petition, with liberty to approach the High Power Committee. Needless to say that if any application for interim relief is moved by the petitioners, the High Power Committee would take a decision in the matter after hearing all the stake-holders in the re-development. 8. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforestated. J.N. PATEL, J. A.P. BHANGALE, J.