IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2185 OF 2007 Mohammed Ashraf Mohammed Ansari ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.S.S.Lanke for Petitioner. Mr.G.W.Mattos, A.G.P. for Respondents 1 & 2. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 16, 2008. JANUARY 16, 2008. JANUARY 16, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr.Mattos, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondents 1 and 2. None appears for Respondents 3 and 4 though served. 3. As the order which is impugned in this Writ Petition was passed by Respondent No.2 : 2 : deciding the eligibility of the Petitioner, the real contest is between the Petitioner and Respondent No.2. Accordingly, the matter is proceeded for final disposal forthwith by consent of Petitioner and Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2. 4. The principal challenge in this Petition is to the order passed by the Respondent No.2 dated 9th July 2004 in exercise of powers under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971. The Authority proceeded on the basis that the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has already published supplementary Annexure II which mentions the name of Ranjit Singh Man, who has been declared as eligible in relation to structure No.502. It is on that basis the claim of the Petitioner has been rejected. Whereas, the Deputy Collector, S.R.A., in his communication dated 20th March 2001 has noted that Ranjit Singh Man has been declared eligible for the structure S.R.A.-2-Sr.No.501. In view of this discrepancy, the final conclusion reached by the Respondent No.2 in the order dated 9th July 2004 is made subject matter of challenge : 3 : in this Petition. Indeed, the Respondent No.2 has offered explanation in affidavit but the reasons stated in the affidavit are not part of the decision which decides the Petitioner’s claim regarding eligibility. 5. In the circumstances, I am in agreement with the suggestion given by the Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 on instructions of Mr.B.B.Gawali, Dy.Collector (In-charge) that this Petition be allowed and the Petitioner be relegated before the Respondent No.2 for consideration of the eligibility of Respondent No.2 afresh on its own merits in accordance with law. 6. Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the stand taken by the contesting Respondent in affidavit that the Petitioner had not produced any proof prior to 1st January 1995 in relation to structure No.502 is incorrect. According to the Petitioner, Petitioner had submitted relevant documents which pertain to period prior to 1st January 1995 and not adverted to by the Respondent No.2 at all on the earlier occasion. : 4 : 7. As the matter is being remitted to the Respondent No.2, it is made clear that the Respondent No.2 shall decide the eligibility of the Petitioner on its own merits afresh, uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the earlier order. In other words, the Petitioner would be free to rely on all such documents as are already produced before the Authority pertaining to period prior to 1st January 1995 to buttress his stand that he was in occupation of the disputed structure No.502 and was therefore eligible for suitable alternate accommodation in lieu of the said structure even though the said structure has been demolished by the Authority. All questions with regard to the eligibility are left open. 8. This Petition is allowed by setting aside order at Exhibit P dated 9th July 2004. Petition is allowed on the above terms. No order as to costs. 9. It is expected that the Respondent No.2 shall decide the remand proceedings as early as : 5 : possible, preferably by end of March 2008. 10. The Petitioner to remain present before the Respondent No.2 on 4th February 2008 at 11.00 a.m. in his Office on which date the Respondent No.2 may proceed to hear the proceedings or shall assign suitable date for hearing of the proceedings, while ensuring that the final decision is rendered before the end of March 2008. Ordered accordingly. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.