JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 25th August, 2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants on the ground that they have an alternative statutory remedy by way of Appeal. Reference was made to Section 103-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (in short the ‘MHAD Act’) and a decision of this Court in Crawford Bayley v. Union of India,1 (2006 (6) SCC 25).

3. While issuing notice on 10.11.2006 it was inter alia ordered as follows :

“Permission to file additional documents is granted. The additional documents are taken on record.

Issue notice.

Counsel for the respondent no.2, present on caveat, accepts notice. Notice shall go to the unrepresented respondents to show cause why this matter be not remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration in view of the fact that the relief sought for in prayer(d) of the writ petition may not be available under the Public Premises Act.

In the meantime, there shall be status quo as regards possession.”

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court had erroneously concluded