1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2086 OF 2001 Mrs.Shubhangi Sandeep Sable ] nee Miss Shubhangi Ganesh Gade ] of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant ] residing at 402, Neel Sagar ] Bandra Reclamation, Bandra(West) ] Mumbai 400 050 ]... Petitioner. Versus 1] Mumbai Housing and Area ] Development Board ] (A MHADA UNIT), Griha Nirman ] Bhuvan, Bandra (East) ] Mumbai 400 051 ] ] 2] State of Maharashtra ] having its headquarters at ] Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 021 ] ] 3] Vinod Yadavrao Nalamwar ] of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant ] residing at 15/453, Shastri ] Nagar, Goregaon(West), ] Mumbai 400 014. ] ] 4] Deepak K Tatpaliwar ] of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant ] residing at 15/453, Shastri ] Nagar, Goregaon (West) ] Mumbai 400 014 ]... Respondents. Mr.A C Singh a/w Mr. Anil D Yadav i/by Mr D R Shah for the Petitioner. Ms.Geeta Shastri, AGP, for the State/Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Appasaheb S Desai for Respondent No.3. 2 CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 16th July 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : PER R M SAVANT, J. 1. The Petitioner, by way of this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks a declaration that the notice dated 10th July 2001 and the consequential letter/order dated 24th July 2001 be declared invalid, illegal, inoperative and having no force in law. The said letter/order is in respect of the Petitioner being removed as a Chief Promoter of the Charkop Vinayak Co-operative Housing Society (Proposed). At the relevant time, there was a dispute as regards whether the Petitioner had tendered her resignation or not as a Chief Promoter. 2. The above Petition was admitted on 4th July 2002 and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (e) was granted, by which the impugned notice and the impugned letter/order were stayed. 3 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Shri A C Singh submitted that during the pendency of the above Petition, the society in question has been formally registered and today a registered society is in existence and the elections to the Managing Committee are being held from time to time. The learned counsel for the Petitioner therefore fairly submitted that so far as challenge to the said notice and the letter/order is concerned, the same has become infructuous. 4. Considering the said statement made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner Mr. A C Singh and looking to the challenge raised in the above Petition, we are of the view that the challenge raised in the above Petition does not survive and the Petition in so far as the said challenge is concerned has become infructuous. 5. In so far as the issue of ineligibility of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 is concerned, against the findings of the Vigilance Officer of the MHADA, the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have filed an 4 Appeal/Representation before the Vice President of MHADA, which Appeal/Representation, according to the learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 Mr.A S Desai as also the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Ms.Shastri, is awaiting decision. Needless to say that the membership of the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 would hinge upon the decision of the said authority and also upon the result of further proceedings if any that would be filed by the said Respondents. 6. With the aforesaid observations, We dispose of the above Petition as infructuous. Rule is accordingly discharged with no order as to costs. Sd/- sd/- [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]