1 wp7730.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7730 OF 2010 Vijayraj Salluki Gupta & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. Dy.Collector & Competent Authority (ENC), Taluka Andheri & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.D.D.Singh for the petitioner Mr.R.R.Sharma for the respondent Nos.12,13,15 & 17 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : OCTOBER 7, 2010 P.C. 1 By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have taken an exception to the order dated 24 th August 2010 passed by the learned President of Maharashtra Slum Areas (IC & R) Tribunal. 2 In appeal no.47 of 2003, a declaration under section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was set aside by the Tribunal and the matter was remanded to the Competent Authority. The respondent nos.2 to 11 filed a Miscellaneous application for setting aside the said Judgment and order passed by the learned President in appeal. The said Misc. application is still pending. Interim application no.19 of 2010 was taken out in the said Misc. application for impleading certain parties as the applicants in the said Misc. application. By the 2 wp7730.sxw impugned order, the said application has been allowed. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Misc. application taken out for setting aside the Judgment in appeal is itself not maintainable. He submitted that there is a delay in filing the said application and the delay has not been condoned. He submitted that the new applicants who have been permitted to be impleaded in the said Misc. application have no locus to challenge the order passed in the appeal. He submitted that even the original applicants in the Misc. application have no locus. 4 I have considered the submissions. Only effect of the impugned order is that certain persons have been allowed to be impleaded as applicants in the application made for setting aside the order passed in the appeal no. 47 of 2003. Whether the application for setting aside the order passed in the appeal is maintainable or not is an issue which is not yet decided and it will have to be decided by the Tribunal. It is obvious that that even the issue of locus of the original applicants as well as added applicants will have to be decided by the Tribunal. If there is a delay in making the application, the Tribunal is bound to consider the said aspect. By the impugned order, all the aforesaid objections raised by the petitioners have not been decided and the said objections remain open which can always be agitated by the petitioners at the time of hearing of the main application. 5 Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ petition is rejected. JUDGE