1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.366 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.158 OF 2009 Federation of Retail Traders & Anr. ...Petitioners. Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.Jamsshed K. Mistry with Mr.Dipesh U.Siroja for the Petitioners. Mr.Nitin S.Dhumal for Respondent No.1. Mr.R.A.Dada, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Kiran Bhagalia i/b. Ms.Asha Bhambbwani for MMRDA Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. May 6, 2010. P.C. : A Clarification is sought of an order passed by the Division Bench on 30 January 2009 in Writ Petition 158 of 2009. The order was passed on the statements made before the Court by Counsel appearing on behalf of MMRDA, MSRDC, the Municipal Corporation and the State Government upon instructions from the Officers who were present before the Court. The order of the Court reads as follows: “The learned counsel appearing for the MMRDA, 2 MSRDC, Municipal Corporation as well as the State Government upon instructions from the officers who are present in court today, have stated that, (i) there shall not be any hawkers on sky-walks which will be free from any obstruction from hawkers and will be used by pedestrians alone; (ii) The distance and height between the structures and the road would be reasonable and there will be no security hazards to the residents or shop owners of areas from where the sky-walks are going to pass. The statement will be binding on the respondents. 2. We do not see any reason to interfere in such matters which are primarily policy matters. These statements have been made upon instructions and despite notification dated 16.12.2008. Writ Petition stands disposed of.” 2. A clarification has now been sought in the Notice of Motion to the effect that the statements which were made before the Court pertain to the sky-walks at Grant Road, Dadar and Mulund. In the affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, a reference has been made to the construction of the Santacruz Chembur Link Road and to the issue of rehabilitating project affected persons thereof at the Pedestrian sky-walk at Kanjur Marg. We do not find that any clarification of this Court is warranted. The statements which were made before the Court as recorded in the order of the Division Bench are clear. The issue before the Court did not pertain to the rehabilitation of project affected persons of 3 the Santacruz Chembur Link Road and there was consequently, no occasion for this Court to deal with the issue. Since the aforesaid issue did not form the subject of the Petition or the subject matter of the order of the Court, it cannot be considered in a Motion taken out in a Petition which has already been disposed of. The Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed of. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.) ( J.P.Devadhar, J.)