PNP 1 WPL1786-25.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO.1786 OF 2010 Abdulla Akbarali Lakhani ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. J.A. Udaipuri i/b M/s.Udaipuri & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Milind More, AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.M. Parshurami for Respondent No.2. Ms. Geeta Joglekar for Respondent No.3 BMC. – Mr. Kevick Setalvad i/b Mulla & Mulla for Respondents 4 and 5. ..... CORAM :MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J . 25 October 2010. P.C.: 1. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner challenges the decision of the Executive Engineer of Respondent No.2 - Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board in so far as the said officer has provided that the petitioner will be PNP 2 WPL1786-25.10 entitled to only one rehabilitation accommodation in lieu of two rooms which are presently being occupied by the petitioner and his family members. 2. In view of the fact that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy available to him by way of preferring an appeal before the Vice President / Chief Executive Officer, MHADA under Clause 7 of the Government Resolution dated 16 August 2010 and, if necessary, a further appeal before the State Government under Clause 8 of the said Government Resolution, it is not necessary to entertain this petition. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, submits that prosecuting the above remedies would take some time and if no stay is granted in the intervening period, the petitioner s’ premises will be demolished and the petitioner will be offered only one transit accommodation. PNP 3 WPL1786-25.10 4. In view of the above and having regard to the nature of the controversy, we are of the view that the interests of justice will be served, if the respondents are directed to allot the petitioner two transit accommodations, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. 5. In the result the petition is disposed of with a direction that upon the petitioner s filing an appeal before the Vice President / ’ Chief Executive Officer of MHADA within three weeks from today, the said authority shall entertain the appeal on merits without raising the bar of limitation. We further direct that, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, the petitioner shall be allotted two transit accommodations. 6. This arrangement is made in view of the assurance being given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after filing of the appeal within the aforesaid time limit, the petitioner shall co-operate with the appellate authority for expeditious hearing and disposal of PNP 4 WPL1786-25.10 the appeal. It is clarified that the above direction is given without going into the merits of the controversy sought to be raised in the Petition. The Petition accordingly stands disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE (DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)