mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 956 OF 2009 Gulam Rasool Kallan @ Bachhu (now deceased) ) through his legal heirs and representatives ) Mohamedali Gulam Rasool Shaikh & Ors. ) Petitioners Vs. The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Board & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. A. A. Siddiqui i/b A. A. Siddiqui & Asso. for the petitioners Mr. G.W. Mattows, AGP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 17th November, 2009 P.C. The petitioner has prayed that proceedings with regard to the order dated 3/3/2005 passed by the Master List Committee of the respondent authority as well as other incidental proceedings wherein the entitlement of the claim of the petitioner has been decided be quashed. 2. Our attention has been drawn to order dated 25/1/08 passed by Learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3453 of 1991. That petition was filed by the petitioner for a direction against the respondents to allot permanent accommodation to the petitioner in the same place or site or situation at Hadiwala Chawl, situated at Kamathipura, Mumbai. That relief was sought on the assertion that the petitioner was resident of premises admeasuring 948 sq. fts. in the old structure at Kamathipura and after hearing the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and after going through the record, learned Single Judge held that the respondents have established from the documents that the petitioner was not a tenant in respect of Room No. 13, 180-180-A, Hadiwala Chawl Kamathipura, Mumbai. Instead the said premises at the relevant time in 1973, when the said building came to be demolished, were occupied by Mr. Haji A. Hamid Majid Zariwala. The said person was provided transit camp in lieu of Room No. 13 of Hadiwala Chawl and has subsequently been allotted permanent accommodation as per his entitlement. Learned Single Judge has further observed that insofar as claim of the petitioner that the petitioner has been allotted transit camp being Tenement No.107/854 at Pratiksha Nagar, Sion Transit Camp, Mumbai, is concerned that is also belied by the documentary evidence on record which indicates that the premises were originally allotted to one Rangwala Imran Ismail and later on to Ram Avtar Bhawani and Babu Ranoji Mane. Learned Single Judge has also observed that he was inclined to accept the respondents plea that the petitioner’s case has been fully considered by the Master List Committee and rejected on 3/3/2006 which position was communicated to the petitioner. This order shows that learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that order dated 3/3/06 passed by the Master List Committee was justified, legal and merited no interference. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out to us that subsequently vide order dated 4/3/09 learned Single Judge has recalled his order on the sole ground that the Original Side Rules obligate hearing of writ petition purely for relief of mandamus without challenging any order passed by the quasi judicial authority to be heard by the Division Bench alone. Learned Single Judge restored the petition and directed that it be placed before the Division Bench. Thus the order was not recalled on merits but it was recalled because the petition was wrongly heard by learned Single Judge and it ought to have been heard by the Division Bench. 4. Instead of prosecuting that writ petition, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying that order dated 3/3/06 should be set aside. It is not possible for us to entertain this petition because that is the subject matter of Writ Petition No. 3453 of 1991 inasmuch as the petitioner is claiming permanent alternate accommodation from the respondents. We may also note that the petitioner has filed a suit in the City Civil Court at Mumbai for restoration of transit accommodation. Interim relief has been refused to the petitioner. Appeal from Order No. 924 of 2009 has been filed in this court against that order. It is to appear before learned Single Judge in due course. 5. For all these reasons it is not possible for us to entertain the petition. However, we make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The petition is dismissed. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)