1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.153 OF 2010 Jayprakash Amarnath Arora .. Petitioner Vs. State Government of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Bombay and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.O.P. Pandey i/b M/s.Pandey and Co. for the petitioner Mr.Ravi Lokhande, A.G.P. with Mr.D.A.Nalawade, G.P. for the respondent no.1 Ms.V.S.Gharpure for respondent nos.5 to 7 Mr.V.H.Kamdi for respondent nos.9 and 10 CORAM : J. N. Patel, Acting C.J., B.R.Gavai, J. DATE : February 2, 2010 P.C. : 1. The limited relief which is sought for by the petitioner is that his case should be examined as regards his eligibility to be placed in Annexure II. – It is the case of the petitioner that he is residing in Room No.10/P.C.67, G.T.B. Nagar, Punjabi Colony, Sion Koliwada, Mumbai 400 037 since 1991 which has been notified as a slum. 2 2. According to the petitioner as per the SRA Scheme, the Slum Developers who are occupying the structure prior to 1.1.1995 are eligible and entitled to alternate accommodation in the scheme for rehabilitation of slum dwellers and, therefore, as the name of the petitioner is not appearing in Annexure – II, he had applied to the competent authority i.e. Deputy Collector, SRA for inclusion of his name in Annexure II. On 6.11.09, the petitioner has – received a letter from Deputy Collector, SRA who addressed letter to the Asstt. Municipal Commissioner, F-North Ward, Plot No.96, Bhau Daji Road, Matunga, Mumbai - 19 requesting him to examine the case of the petitioner for the purpose of including his name in Annexure II in the matter of – rehabilitation scheme which has been implemented i.e. through Omshivshakti (G.T.B. Nagar), Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Co-op.Hsg.Soc.Ltd. but till today he has not received any communication from respondent no.6. 3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.9 and 10 who are the developers submits that in case respondent no.6 fails to take a decision as regards entitlement / eligibility of the petitioner then the petitioner can move the High Power Committee constituted as per the notification dt. 15.11.07 pursuant to the orders passed by this court in the case of Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-op.Housing Society Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Reported in 2008 (1) Bom C.R. 1. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 submits that she would like to seek instructions in the matter. 3 4. In our opinion, it is not necessary for this court to wait for instructions from respondent no.5 as the communication received by the petitioner from the office of respondent no.3 is sufficiently clear that his case has been referred to respondent no.6 to take a decision as to whether the petitioner is eligible for being included in Annexure - II so as to get the benefit of the SRA scheme. 5. We therefore, dispose of this petition with a direction to respondent no.6 to take a decision in the matter of eligibility of the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks from the date of communication of this order, if the decision is not taken in the matter and communicated to the petitioner. Petitioner to communicate this order to the respondent no.6. Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) (B.R.GAVAI, J)