JUDGMENT - A.C. AGARWAL, J.:---The present petition in so far as it seeks to impugn the virus of sub-section (2) of section 28 of the Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board Act, 1969 and sub-section (2) of section 83 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 will no longer survive in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (State of Maharashtra v. Basantibai)1, reported in 1986(3) Bom.C.R. 243 wherein the virus of the entire Act has been upheld. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision in para 13 has observed as follows (Page 256 Bom.C.R) :

"13. Even granting for purposes of argument that sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 44 are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, we are of the view that the said provisions receive the protection of Article 31-C of the Constitution. We shall proceed to test the validity of the argument keeping aside for the time being the observations in (Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Company v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.)2, 1983(1) S.C.R. 1000 Let us proceed on the basis that after (Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala)3, 1973 Supp. S.C.R. 1 and (Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India)4, 1981(1)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document