1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 122 OF 2010 Amba Chawl Wadi Rahiwasi Seva Sangh. ... Petitioners. vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra & 10 ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.K. Nair i/b S.S. Lanke for the petitioners. Mr. Milind More, AGP, with D.A. Nalawde, GP, for the respondent Nos.1, 3, 7 to 9. Mr. G.D. Utangale for the respondent No.3. Mr. Vinod Mahadik for the respondent Nos.5 & 6. Mr. S.G. Surana for the respondent No.10. Mr. Prasad Rao for the respondent No.11. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 1ST APRIL, 2010 P.C. : Heard. 2. It was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioners 2 that in the earlier round of litigation, this court has dealt with all the issues raised in this Petition in Writ Petition No.6735 of 2002, filed by the same petitioners in respect of the same project by order dated 2nd March, 2005, which was challenged in the Supreme Court, and the SLP came to be dismissed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after this court directed the State Government to constitute High Power Committee (Tulsiwadi Navnirman Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. 2008 (1) Bom.C.R. 1), the petitioners have approached the High Power Committee and it is the decision of the High Power Committee which is impugned in this Petition. 4. Prima facie, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot have second round of litigation merely because a forum has been subsequently created by virtue of the orders passed by this court. Insofar as the case of the petitioner was concerned, that was finally adjudicated by this court while disposing of the previous Petition. 3 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter brought to our attention, certain facts pleaded in the Petition which, according to him, discloses that the respondents are hand-in-glove with each other and have played a fraud by including names of certain persons who are not eligible and further by creating multiple rights in favour of the persons who are related to the members of the respondent No.1 - society which was also party-respondent No.3 in the earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no bar on the part of this court in entertaining a subsequent Petition arising out of a fresh cause of action on the same issues and placed reliance in the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1986 SC 1780. We do not think that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court applies to the facts of this case. In the present matter, the petitioners have been litigating in all forums including civil courts and while disposing of their earlier petition on 2nd March, 2005, this court has specifically observed how the petitioners are abusing the 4 process of court in obstructing the implementation of redevelopment of the slum for rehabilitating the slum dwellers. 7. We made it very clear to the learned counsel for the petitioners that this is nothing but a clear-cut case of abuse of process of court and that if at all they have got any grievance in respect of the parties indulging in fraud, corruption etc. they have got other forums where the petitioners can agitate the issue and this court will not entertain matters on this aspect, particularly when it has already decided all the issues. On this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition to approach proper forum. Permitted to withdraw. Petition dismissed as withdrawn. ( J. N. PATEL, J.) ( A.P. BHANGALE, J.)