Momin Manzil Welfare Association v. Mumbai Building Repairs And Reconstruction Board And 5 ORS

41.WPNo.26342021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2634 OF 2021 Momin Manzil Welfare Association ...

Petitioner

Versus

Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board & Ors.

...

Respondents Adv. Mayur Khandeparkar, Counsel a/w. Sanjay Kadam Sanjeel Kadam i/b. Kadam & Co.,Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Manisha Jagtap, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2/ MHADA.

Mr. Sagar Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4/ MCGM.

Adv. Sana Khan i/b. Rameez Shaikh, Advocate for Respondent No.5.

Adv. Aseem Naphade a/w. Nitisha Lad i/b. Murudkar & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.6.

CORAM:

S.V. GANGAPURWALA & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATED :

SEPTEMBER 19, 2022 P.C.

1.

We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned Advocate for MHADA, on instructions, submits that after the cancellation of the proposal of the Development by the petitioner, MHADA has not received any fresh proposal for redevelopment from respondent No.5.

2.

The learned Advocate for MHADA, on the basis of Gaikwad RD 1/2

41.WPNo.26342021.doc instructions of Mr. Rao, E2, MBRR, submits that if proposal is received for redevelopment from respondent No.5, then the decision will be taken after notice to the petitioner. 3.

In view of statement made by the learned Advocate for MHADA, the petitioner at this stage does not press for other further relief.

4.

The writ petition, as such, is disposed of. No costs. (R. N. LADDHA, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) Digitally signed by RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Date:

2022.09.20 19:19:57 +0530 RAJU DATTATRAYA GAIKWAD Gaikwad RD 2/2