agk (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3451 OF 2010 Bajirao Dattatraya Mungekar .. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Sushil K. Chaurasia for the petitioner. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr.Narula Rajiv i/by M/s.Jhangiani, Namla & Associate for respondent No.6. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 7th September 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as the developer by the 5th respondent society to develop the property under Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the 4th respondent-Slum Rehabilitation Authority calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be removed as a developer. Ultimately, an order was passed on 13th October 2007 by which the petitioner was removed as a developer and the 6th respondent was appointed as a agk (2) developer. 2 The actions of the 4th respondent were challenged by the petitioner by approaching the High Power Committee appointed by this Court. The High Power Committee directed the 4th respondent to issue commencement certificate to new developer in respect of further construction work. The order of High Power Committee has been challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition which has been admitted for final hearing and admittedly, no interim relief has been granted in the said writ petition. 3 A notice was issued to the petitioner by Deputy Collector and Competent Authority calling upon the petitioner to hand over possession of two premises bearing tenement Nos.1 and 3 which were rehab tenements in possession of the petitioner. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Administrator and Divisional Commissioner which has been dismissed. It is not in dispute that the order of eviction has been already implemented and possession of the tenements has been taken over by the 4th respondent. 4 In Writ Petition No.19 of 2010, this Court declined to grant any interim agk (3) relief in favour of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner cannot act as a developer. 5 The possession of the tenements is already taken over by the 4th respondent. As the Division Bench has declined to grant any interim relief in favour of the petitioner, this petition cannot be entertained in as much as today the petitioner cannot claim any right as a developer to hold the said tenements. It is obvious that all actions of the respondents are subject to final outcome of Writ Petition No.19 of 2010. Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)