1 mss WP1766 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1766 OF 2011 SMT. JAYA RAMDAS MENON & ORS .. PETITIONERS Vs. THE MAHARASHTRA HOUSING & AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD & ANR. .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Manohar V. Shetty for the petitioners Mr. P. G. Lad, AGP for R-1 Mr. A. G. Damle for R-2 Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. J. G. Reddy for applicant in CHS No. 277 of 2011. CORAM: S. S. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 17/10/2011 P.C. At the request of Mr. Shetty, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, this petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to adopt appropriate proceedings to challenge the resolution and decision of the 2nd respondent Society and the agreements executed with M/s. Apoorva Properties. All contentions of all parties in relation to the said resolution and the decision of the society and the agreement with the 2 mss WP1766 developers are kept open. 2. Mr. Dhakephalkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants in Chamber Summons No. 277 of 2011 and Mr. Damle, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the co-operative housing society, both state that the petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed on 11th August, 2011 under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 i.e. an order passed by a statutory authority under statutory powers. That order operates by its own force. 3. In the proceedings in which the order has been passed, the authority cannot go into the issues which have been raised by the petitioners as against the society and the developers. Therefore, in the garb of seeking some protection from this court against the demolition of the existing premises, the petitioners should not be allowed to defeat the exercise of a statutory power by the statutory authority and which is to facilitate redevelopment of old and dilapidated buildings. 4. There is substance in this objection of both the learned counsel. In these circumstances at the request of Mr. Shetty, while allowing the writ petitioners to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appropriate 3 mss WP1766 proceedings, as noted above, it is directed that if they fail to obtain any interim order in those proceedings within a period of three weeks from today, the Executive Engineer, Ghatkopar Division, MHADA, can enforce his order dated 11th August, 2011 passed under Section 95A of the MHADA Act and evict the petitioners summarily from their existing premises by directing them to shift to temporary alternate accommodation. It would be open for the Executive Engineer to exercise such powers as are permissible in law including seeking assistance from the local police station to break open the locks placed on the premises that are in possession of the petitioners. 5. In the light of the withdrawal of the writ petition, Chamber Summons No. 277 of 2011 does not survive and stands disposed of. (S. S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)