ssp 1 WP 1163 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1163 OF 2011 Navneet Welfare Association and Ors. .....Petitioners versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.S.A.Sawant with Ms.Neeta Solankhi i/by Kiran Jain & Co., for the petitioners. Mr.G.S.Mattos, for respondent Nos.1 and 3. Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr.C.Ardeshir i/by Kanga & Co., for respondent No.4. Mr.P.G.Lad, AGP, for respondent Nos.9 and 82. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/by Madekar & Co., for respondent Nos. 17, 18, 20, 21, 60, 61, 77 and 78. Mr.R.N.Kachare i/by Mr.Kumar Sheete, for respondent Nos.32, 35 and 39. Mr.A.N.Raut i/by Desai Desai Carrimjee and Mulla, for respondent No.81. Ms.S.V.Bharucha with Mr.Rajinder Kumar, for respondent No.83. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 18 th AUGUST, 2011 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the notification issued under Section 95(A)(2) of the MHADA Act, against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 and 8 to 12. The petitioners have also challenged the scheme of redevelopment on various grounds. 2. It is not necessary to discuss the facts in detail, as Mr.Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.4, ssp 2 WP 1163 of 2011 informed the Court that an order has been passed by the Secretary of Environment Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, directing respondent No. 4 to stop the work and all activities related to development of the said property. Directions are also given to the Corporation to withdraw the commencement certificate. 3. In view of the said development, at present respondent No. 4 cannot proceed with the development activities. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 has already approached the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India, in that connection. As on today, since the respondent No.4 cannot proceed further with the development activities and therefore, the MHADA also cannot also enforce the order passed under Section 95(A)(2), it is not necessary to entertain the petition at this stage. 4. In case, respondent No.4 is able to obtain No Objection Certificate and gets clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, in that eventuality, the MHADA may proceed to execute the order under Section 95(A)(2) of the Act. However, such orders may not be enforced for a period of two weeks from the date of decision, in case respondent No.4 is able to get the necessary permission from the Ministry of Environment and Forest. It will be open to the petitioners to file fresh petition taking all contentions which are raised in this petition and all ssp 3 WP 1163 of 2011 other contentions which may become available. Suffice it to say that in view of the subsequent development, the grievance of the petitioners no longer survives. Needless to say that if any application is preferred by respondent No.4 and if it is pending, the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Govt. of India, may decide the application in accordance with law, after hearing the concerned parties. The decision may be taken expeditiously so that the issue is not further delayed. 5. In view of what is stated above, the writ petition to stand disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )