IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 589 OF 2004 Mrs. Salamma George ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and 2 others ... Respondents Mr. S.S. Lanke for Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondent nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 P.C. 1. Respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C. & R.) Tribunal Mumbai to challenge the declaration of the areas as slum. It was the case of the appellant before the tribunal that she was not aware of the order passed. She also preferred an application for condonation of delay. That application came to be disposed of on 30.1.2002. 2. It transpires thereafter that the Petitioner herein applied for being added as co-respondents in the appeal. The learned Tribunal for the reasons set out in the order was pleased to allow the appeal and remanded the matter back for fresh enquiry in terms as set out in the order of 1.11.2002. 3. The Petitioner herein filed present petition some times on 6.2.2003. Petition was dismissed on 2.8.2004 on account of failure of the petitioners to remain present and as the earlier record shows also on several earlier dates the petitioners were not present. In the appeal preferred that order has been set aside and the matter has been remanded back to this court for re-hearing the petition. 4. At the hearing of this petition, on behalf of the Petitioner, their learned counsel submits as under : (1) That the petitioners were not heard on the application for condonation of delay; (2) It is further contended that the appeal was heard without complying with the mandatory requirement of Section 4(4) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Re-development) Act, 1971. Reliance for that purpose is placed on the judgement of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ramniklalbhai V. Shah and Ors. Vs. Mahrashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Re-development) Tribunal Bombay & Ors. 1996(3) ALL M.R. 569. (3) While condoning the delay, respondent No. 3 did not show sufficient cause. For all these reasons it is contended that the order should be set aside. 5. From the records it is clear that when the delay was condoned, the petitioner herein was not party. The Petitioner after condonation of delay has applied for being added as a party and his application was allowed and she was heard in the appeal through counsel. The grievance therefore, of the Petitioner that she was not heard when the delay was condoned has to be rejected as she then was not a party. If the Petitioner was still aggrieved, the Petitioner could have moved the Tribunal for setting aside order condoning the delay. That also was not done. At least the record does not show that nor is it averred in the petition to that effect. That order to condone the delay was passed on 30.1.2002. In the prayer clause also the order condoning delay has not been challenged. After the order is being pronounced, the learned counsel seeks leave to amend the petition and substitute the date 30.7.2002 as seen in the prayer clause to 30.1.2002. Even if that is considered, it will be clear that the Petitioner nowhere in the petition has given any explanation as to why there is delay in filing the petition which was filed only on 6.2.2004 i.e. nearly after two years. In the light of that no cause for interference in so far as the order dated 30.1.2002. . Once that be the case, the question of allowing petitioner to challenge the order on the ground of sufficiency of cause, would not arise and that also will have to be rejected. 6. The question which then arises is, as to whether the order should be set aside on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement of Section 4(4) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance & Re-development) Act. Section 4(4) of the said act casts a duty on the tribunal to publish in Marathi Newspaper in the locality and by other means as set out therein, in the locality inviting respondents to file their objections. The object behind said section therefore, would be that the persons interested who may be aggrieved by the order or challenge to the order can appear before the tribunal to raise these objections. In the instant case, the petitioner was not a party. The petitioner sought intervention. It cannot therefore, be said that on account of any failure if any, of the tribunal to publish the notice in local newspaper, the petitioner can be said to be aggrieved and or the order be set aside on that count. In the case of Ramniklal Bhai V. Shah (supra) it appears that the petitioner had no notice and it is in that context that the court was examining the matter. Interference under exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction are in those cases where palpable injustice is caused to the petitioner on account of non-publication of notice. Therefore in the instant case at the highest if there are other aggrieved persons who have not been heard and who were precluded from raising these objections on account of want of notice, their grievance if any could be understood. The Apex Court in Land Acquisition Cases in the matter of publication of notice in the locality has observed that the party must show that prejudice was occasioned on account of non publication in the locality. It may be made clear that this is not qua other mandatory requirement of publication in the gazette and daily newspaper. The Petitioner having been heard, to my mind this will not be a fit case where the order should set aside the order only on that count. 7. Apart from that the effect of the order is that the Respondent No.3’s contention that she was not heard before the area was declared as slum will be considered before the tribunal. The Petitioner herein will have a right to be heard if she participates in the proceedings. All issues are left open. Considering the above, no case for interference. Petition stands rejected. . Authenticated copy of this order be issued to the parties. (F.I. REBELLO,J.)