ssp 1 WP 803 of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.803 OF 1997 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.430 OF 2000 Anilkumar K. Parekh and Ors. .....Petitioners versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.P.P.Chawan i/by Mr.A.S.Gadkari, for the petitioners. Ms.Kranti L.C. i/by Ms.Bhavana Mhatre, for the applicant in the Chamber summons No.350 of 2010. Mr.Shekhar Ingawale, AGP, for the respondent-State. Mrs.P.A.Purandare, for the Corporation. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 18 th AUGUST, 2011 P.C. 1. The petitioners were having their stalls wherein they were carrying out different business in the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, which is notified as a National Park under the Wild Life Protection Act. It is the claim of the petitioners that they were carrying out business under the licences issued by the Municipal Corporation. The structures of the petitioners have been demolished pursuant to the orders passed in Writ Petition No.305 of 1995, which is a writ petition filed in public interest for removal of encroachments in the National Park. Against the refusal of interim relief in the above petition, the petitioners had approached the ssp 2 WP 803 of 1997 Apex Court and the SLP filed by the petitioners was rejected. In view of the fact that it is now well settled by orders passed by this Court from time to time in the said Writ Petition No.305 of 1995, that non-forest activities are not permissible and action has been taken against the persons carrying out such non-forest activities, it is not possible to grant any relief to the petitioners in the above petition. However, since it is the case of the petitioners that a policy has been evolved by the State for rehabilitation of encroachers of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, it would be open for the petitioners to make an application to the respondents for rehabilitation. If such an application is made, needless to say that the respondents would consider the same on the anvil of the policies in force. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. 2. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, Notice of Motion No.430 of 2000 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )