ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 7322 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7322 OF 2008 PETITION NO. 7322 OF 2008 Ramesh Gopal Rao & Ors. ...Petitioners. Vs. The Chief Officer, MHADA & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.A.S.Karwande for the Petitioners. Mr.S.G.Surana for Respondent No.5. Mr.S.P.Thorat for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 23rd October, 2008. : 23rd October, 2008. : 23rd October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioners’ suit is pending whereby the challenge is made to the action of MHADA, Respondent No.1. The learned Judge, after considering the circumstances and the material placed on record, ordered as under:- . "Ld. Adv. For the plff. Submitted Ch/s along with Affidavit in support of Ch/s. the same are taken on record and marked as Exh ’4’ and Exh ’5’ respectively, thereby seeking to amend the plaint. Since according to the plaintiff during the pendency of the ( 2 ) suit on 13-10-2008 MHADA has issued notice under section 95A. In view of this subsequent events Ld. Adv. For the plaintiff reiterated prayer for ad-interim relief. It has been contended by the plaintiff that 70% occupants have never given their consent and as such he is entitled to ad-interim relief to stay of notice under section 95A of the MHADA Act. . Perusal of record annexed with the plaint itself show that majority of the plaintiffs themselves have given their consent and thye have also executed affidavits purporting to cancel the said consent. In view of this factual aspect, in my view no case for ad-interim relief is made at this stage. Matter already adjd. To 23-10-2008." 2. This order is under challenge by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent basically pointed out that the Plaintiffs- Petitioners have already given an ( 3 ) undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 10th November, 2008. The xerox copy of the said undertaking is placed on record. That undertaking is dated 18th October, 2008. 3. The Full Bench of this Court, in Tulsiwadi Tulsiwadi Tulsiwadi Navnirman Navnirman Navnirman Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & anr. Vs. Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & anr. Vs. Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & anr. Vs. State State State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 851, of Maharashtra & Ors. 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 851, of Maharashtra & Ors. 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 851, has constituted a High Power Committee to decide and settle the disputes of such nature. There are various aspects which need detailed enquiry and scrutiny by the competent authority including Respondent No.1. In view of this, I see there is no reason to interfere with the said order and specially when the Petitioners -Plaintiffs themselves gave that undertaking. However, the liberty is granted to approach the High Power Committee for appropriate relief. The Respondents have no objection for this. All points are kept open. 4. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)