1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1456 OF 2008 Dist.: MUMBAI Vilas Vardhamanrao Sanghai ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. R.V. Govilkar for the petitioner Mr. S.N. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE: JUNE 19, 2008 P. C.:- The following reliefs are claimed in the Writ Petition:- “(a) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, the record and proceedings relating to the requisitioned premises being flat No. C, 4th floor, Cadell Court, (Cadell Road) Swatanter Veer Savarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016, with the Department of Home, Department of Housing and the Commissioner of Police be called for from the respective Respondents; (b) After going through the same by an appropriate writ, order or direction Respondent No.1, the State of Maharashtra and Respondent No. 5 Commissioner of Police, jointly and severally be ordered and directed to consider / hold the Petitioner to be protected under the provisions of Sections 7(2)(B), 15 and 27 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and be further directed to afford all the protection to the Petitioner as an allottee of the requisitioned premises; (c) Respondents No.1 and 5 be further restrained 2 permanently from treating the Petitioner merely as an allottee of the requisitioned premises who is not entitled to the protection under Sections 7(2), (B), 15 and 27 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, and the Respondents be further restrained from taking any action of eviction against the Petitioner; (d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, Respondent Nos. 1 and 5 be restrained from initiating any proceedings for eviction of the Petitioner from Flat No. C, 4th floor, Cadell Court, (Cadell Road) Swatanter Veer Savarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai 400 016; (e) ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) above be granted; (f) the costs of this petition be provided for; and (g) For such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstance s of the case may require.” 2. There is no cause of action mentioned in the Writ Petition. There is no ground to believe that any steps have been taken by the respondents to evict the petitioner, who, prima facie, is holding the property, which was allotted to him while he was in office, even after his retirement. The writ Petition is misconceived and dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. S.S. SHINDE, J.