1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 306 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2769 OF 2008 Abdul Razak Noor Mohd. Ansari ...Applicant/Ptnr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents And Smt.Shamsunnisa A.Siddique & 5 Ors...Interveners Mrs. Anjali Iyer, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, Advocate for the Respdt. No.3 Mr. Satyen Vora i/b. Mr. Makrand Gandhi & Co., Advocate for the Respondent No.4 Mrs. V.R.Bhosale, A.P.P for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 1ST OCTOBER, 2009 P.C. : 1.None appears for the applicants who seek to be added as interveners in Criminal Writ Petition No.2769/2008. On the last date also none appeared for the applicants. 2.The grievance arose in this Application is that they have been rendered shelterless as all of 2 them have been evicted from their respective tenements in Building No.17-B and the possession of the said tenements has been handed over to the Petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2769/2008 pursuant to our orders. Criminal Writ Petition No.2769/2008 has been disposed by us on 8 th September, 2009 and this application is stated to have been filed on the same day. 3.In our order dated 8 th September 2009 we have noted the purshis filed by Mr. Kuldeep S. Patil, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3 and his affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the said Respondent. It was stated that 10 affected persons who are beneficiaries of this Petition would be accommodated in Building No.16 instead of their claim in Building No.17-B. He had further clarified that the persons who are seeking to intervene on the basis of the affidavit by them making any application for intervention were not the allottees of the Respondent No.3 and therefore, they could not have been provided with any tenements and consequently they were in occupation of the vacated tenements unauthorisedly. 4.The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 has 3 now placed before us a statement which indicates that the present applicants as well as 7 others who were evicted from building No.17-2B have been now alloted tenements in Building No.8, 9 and 17-A by the Respondent No.4 and 9 of them have already taken possession of the newly allotted tenements in their respective buildings. Smr. Shamsunnisa A. Siddique had approached this Court (on the original side) in Writ Petition (L) No.1566/2009 and the same Petition came to be disposed as withdrawn on 25 th September 2009. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 states that Smt. Shamsunnisa A. Siddique has also been allotted a new tenement by the Respondent No.4. This information furnished by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.4 clearly goes to show that all the applicants who wanted to be added as interveners have been rehabilitated and new tenements have been allotted to them by the Respondent No.4. We are, therefore, satisfied that they are no more shelterless. 5.The Application is rejected. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]