MOHITE R.S., J.:---These two writ petitions seek to prevent the proposed regularisations of several un-authorised constructions in Mumbai city. Since both the petitions are filed in public interest, arise out of a common background of facts and involve the same questions of law, they are being heard and disposed of together.

2.A brief chronology of the relevant facts is as under:

(a)According to the petitioners they learnt from Newspaper reports that 154 buildings had been erected in an irregular manner by committing violations of the provisions of the Development Control Rules. These violations were mostly in the R-ward and K-ward of the Bombay Municipal Corporation, comprising of areas in Dahisar, Borivali, Kandivali, Andheri and Bandra. From the facts available, the petitioners noted that a few architects were responsible for these violations and that there was a nexus between the officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation and these few architects, in as much as, on noticing the irregularities, the Bombay Municipal Corporation would only issue stop work notices but would take no follow up action of demolition in pursuance thereof. Further the Bombay Municipal Corporation would take no action when the builders/developers put out advertisements for sale of the said un-authorised structures which resulted in unsuspecting buyers purchasing flats without knowledge that the construction thereof was un-authorised and illegal. That some of such flat purchasers were persons who would be taking huge loans on interest and in due course they would find that they had been victimised and would also become liable to pay higher taxes in the absence of an occupation certificate. It was contended that such builders/developers, after effecting illegal construction were purchasing "Transferable Development Rights" (Hereinafter referred to as TDR) and using the same for seeking the regularisation of their illegal structures. That this method being followed by the builders/developers and being permitted by the Bombay Municipal Corporation was setting up a bad precedent for builders/developers to first effect an illegal construction and then to get it regularised by paying a penalty. That such construction was over burdening the infrastructure in the city of Mumbai.

(b)The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 379 of 2003 prayed for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus to demolish the un-authorised portion of un-authorised construction which was under consideration for regularisation and for a direction against the Municipal Corporation and the Municipal Commissioner to blacklist the Architects, builders/developer and construction companies in which they were partners or directors. The prayers in Writ Petition No. 2822 of 2003 were for appointing a Committee under a chairmanship of any retired High Court Judge to investigate the grievances made by the petitioners against the regularisation orders passed by the Municipal Commissioner as also for a declaration that a Circular being Circular No. AMC/R/3258 dated 30-7-1995 may be declared as ultra vires of the D.C. Rules, MRTP Act and NMC Act. The petitioners lastly sought a direction from this Court against the Bombay Municipal Corporation requiring them to make necessary investigation and enquiries in regard to the illegal construction of buildings through the Anti Corruption Bureau.

(c)Writ Petition No. 379 of 2003 was filed first in point of time on 21-1-2003. On 22-1-2003 a Division Bench of this Court issued a notice before admission and granted ad interim relief in terms of prayer Clause 10(e) of the said writ petition, by the grant of which, the proposal to regularise un-authorised development in all the 154 buildings came to be stayed. The stay then granted, subject to a modification referred to here-in-below, was continued from time to time and subsists today.

(d)By a further order dated 18-2-2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 379 of 2003 the Court modified the ad interim or