/ 1/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.548 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1810 OF 2004 NORTHERN INDIA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents And Mr.Subash Bhasin & Anr. ...Interveners Mr.M.M. Merchant i/b. M/s.Halai and Co. for ApplicantS in support of N/M (Interveners). Mr.Rajiv Narulla i/b. J. Narulla & Associates for Petitioner. Mr.Milind More AGP for Respondent No.1 & 2. Mr.Jagdish Aradwad for Respondent No.3. Mr.Atul Rajadhyaksha, Sr.Adv. with Mr.I.Budhadev for Respondent No.7 & 8. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : 4th APRIL, 2008. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned counsel for the Applicant/Interveners, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Interveners that order which was passed by this Court dated 4th May, 2007, was obtained by the / 2/ Petitioner by practicing fraud by misleading this Court. It is submitted that the Petitioner was represented by the persons who had no authority to represent the Petitioner-Society, as no permission was granted to them by the Special General Body Meeting to file the consent terms. This submission was seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.7 and 8. Learned counsel for the Intervener submitted that since the Society's representatives did not have authority to represent the Society, consent terms could not have been filed by them. 3. In the Writ Petition, the Petitioner had asked for the following reliefs:- a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or such other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Respondents and call for the record and proceedings with the said Respondent and after looking into the legality and propriety of the Impugned Order Ex.I i.e. Order and judgment dated 23-07-2003 Ex.I, passed by the Present, the Maharashtra Slum Areas (I.C. / 3/ & R.) Tribunal and Special Tribunal Mumbai, in Appeal No.13 of 2003 and order of declaration of slum i.e Order No.SRA/1628/2001 DC dated 08-03-2002 Ex.A and published in newspapers on 26-03-2002, passed by the Respondent No.3, the same be quashed. (a1) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or such other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and call for the record and proceedings with the said Respondents and after looking into the legality and propriety of the Impugned Notice i.e. notice dated 19-08- 2004 bearing Ref.No.AC/Estates/7335/LB(II) OP (MDD/8053), issued by the Respondent No.4A, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the purported exercise of power by Respondent No.4A, without authority of law and without due process of law is illegal and bad-in- law. (a2) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ / 4/ of Certiorari or Mandamus or such other Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and call for the record and proceedings with the said Respondents and after looking into th legality and propriety of the Impugned Notice i.e. notice dated 19-08-2004 bearing Ref.No.AC/Estates/7335/LB(II) OP (MDD/8053), the same be quashed and set aside. b) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above Petition, the operation and/or the execution of the order of declaration of slum be stayed and accordingly, the Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 be restrained by order of this Hon'ble Court from doing any thing further or permitting anything to be done in furtherance to the proposal submitted by the Respondent No.7 under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. b1) That pending the hearing and final disposal of the above Petition, the Respondent Nos.4 to 6, their servants and agents be restrained by order of this Hon'ble / 5/ Court from taking possession of the suit plots i.e. Plot Nos.21/5 & 21/6, Sewri Wadala Estate, Mumbai and in any manner whatsoever taking any action pursuant to the Impugned Notice dated 19-08-2004. c) ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause(b) above be please granted; d) cost of this application be provided for; e) such other and further relief's as the nature and circumstances of this case may require in the interest of justice be please granted.” Learned counsel for the Interveners conceded that reliefs which are granted are in the interest of the Society. Only grievance of the Interveners is that the President and the Secretary did not have authority to enter into the consent terms with the Respondent No.7 and 8. He submitted that he has challenged the agreement which was executed by the Petitioner and the Respondent No.7 and 8 before the appropriate forum. He submitted that, however, it must be clarified that it would be open for the Interveners to / 6/ challenge the said agreement and consent terms which are arrived by between the Petitioner and the Respondent No.7 and 8. In my view, liberty is not necessary to challenge the consent terms which are filed by the parties before the Court. However, it is clarified that the Intervener is at liberty to challenge the agreement and consent terms before the appropriate forums. Contentions of the Interveners, Petitioner and Respondent No.7 and 8 are kept open and will be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law. With these directions, Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly. ( V.M. KANADE, J.)