ssp 1 WP 2184 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2184 OF 2010 Warsi Co-op. Housing Society (Prop.) .....Petitioner versus The Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.P.J.Thorat, for the petitioner. Ms.P.A.Purandare, fir respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.G.D.Utangale i/by Utangale & Co., for respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 08 th SEPTEMBER, 2011 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that respondent No.1 Corporation may be directed to accept the proposal made by the petitioner, which is a proposed co-operative society, in the matter of development under the SRA in respect of the property CS No.446(Pt), 473(Pt), 474(Pt), 475(Pt) and 476(Pt) of Parel-Sewree Division, Sewree Cross Road, Sewree, Mumbai – 400 015. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the proposal of the petitioner was initially accepted by the SRA regarding the development of the aforesaid properties under Regulation 33(10), the respondent-Corporation now cannot deny the said claim. In this behalf, the decision taken by the Corporation is produced on record at page 44, by which the Slum Redevelopment Authority has ssp 2 WP 2184 of 2010 been informed by the Corporation that the scheme for redevelopment of the property which belongs to the Corporation is going to be carried out by the Corporation itself through its Estate Department under the Development Control Regulations. Since the properties in question belong to the Corporation, it is open to the Corporation to take appropriate decision as to whether it would like to develop the said properties on its own through its department. In our view, the petitioner cannot compel the Corporation that his proposal must be accepted in this behalf. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Corporation, the proposal made by the petitioner is recorded (is filed) by the Corporation and it has not been proceeded further. As against that, some other societies have also applied for the same. The learned counsel for the Corporation submits that the Corporation has not approved any proposal for development of the said plots under reference till date. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that if the proposal of the petitioner is under 33(10), the same cannot be considered, as the Corporation has decided to proceed further as per 33(9). 2. In view of the same, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner can be granted. However, if at the time when the Corporation proceeds to ssp 3 WP 2184 of 2010 consider the proposals made by various other societies, the claim of the petitioner also may be considered and at that time, the proposal of the petitioner cannot be treated as filed and his claim may be considered with the other societies in accordance with law. It is clarified that we are not examining whether the petitioner is entitled to get his proposal sanctioned by the Corporation and it is for the Corporation to take appropriate decision in respect of the proposal made by the petitioner. 3. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )