1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3856 OF 2009 Shankar s/o.Nagaswammy Dhobi Mimiya .. Petitioner Vs The C.E.O., Slum Rehabilitation Authority .. Respondent Mr.Vineet D’Silva, for petitioenr Mr.R.R.Mishra, for respondent No.3. Mr.P.P.Kakade, AGP for respondent-State. CORAM : D. B. BHOSALE, J. DATE : 30/07/2009 PC: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.R.R.Mishra waives service for respondent No.3 and Mr.P.P.Kakade, AGP waives service for respondent-State. The petition is heard finally with consent of the parties. 3. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 12th December, 2008 passed by Respondent No.5 rejecting the 2 application filed by the petitioner holding that he is not eligible for commercial premises. It appears that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by way of Writ Petition No.827 of 2007. This writ petition was disposed of by order dated 13th July, 2007 with direction to Respondent No.5 to consider the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned order has been passed holding that the petitioner is not eligible for commercial/non-residential premises. 4. According to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed in view of his application for commercial premises. The petitioner submits that there is no dispute that the petitioner is eligible for allotment of tenement in the SRA scheme. He further contends that even if it is assumed that he is not entitled/eligible for commercial premises, his claim for other categories ought to have been considered by Respondent No.5. The concerned authority has not recorded any finding regarding eligibility of the petitioner, though they have recorded in the order that he was having hut at the time of survey. Merely because the petitioner applied for commercial/non-residential premises does not mean that the authority was not obliged to consider his claim for other categories viz.residential or residential-cum-commercial, if he 3 was otherwise eligible. There are no findings to that effect recorded by the concerned authority in the impugned order. 5. Hence, the order dated 12th December, 2008 is set aside. Respondent No.5 is directed to consider the claim of petitioner either for residential or residential-cum-commercial premises if he is held to be entitled/eligible. Respondent No.5 shall decide claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before Respondent No.5 within a period of one week from today. It is needless to state that if the petitioner is held to be eligible/entitled, Respondent No.5 shall issue appropriate directions to Respondent No.3, in which case Respondent No.3 will have to accommodate him in the scheme. 6. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)