H. L. GOKHALE, J. : - Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. This petition is filed by a proposed housing society of over 100 slum dwellers who want to develop a slum area situated in Andheri/Vile Parle (East), Mumbai. Petitioner No.2 is a slum developer whom they have chosen to develop this property. They are challenging the decision of the Secretary (Housing) dated 21st April, 2005 whereby he has directed respondent No. 1 to consider the proposal of respondent No.3 and to issue them the Letter of Intent to develop the concerned property. Respondent No.3 is a developer appointed by respondent No.5 which is another proposed co -operative housing society and which has interest in developing the same parcel of land.

3. The short facts leading to this petition are this wise that the concerned parcel of land belongs to the Municipal Corporation. Neither the 1st petitioner society nor the 5th respondent society or their respective builders have any rights whatsoever in this parcel of land. Their rights will have to be examined only in the context of whatever limited status they have been given under the relevant statutes and that status is confined to this much that 70% of slum dwellers of a slum can apply for development of that slum property. Under the Scheme, the relevant Act and the Rules for slum rehabilitation as explained by this Court, the application of a proposed society is to be examined by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) on receiving it and if the application of one proposed society is rejected, then only the proposal of another group can be entertained .

4. This position has been explained by this Court in a Division Bench judgment, to which one of us (Gokhale, J.) was a party, i.e. Writ Petition No. 2746 of 2005 decided on 26th April, 2006 [since reported in 2006(4) MhLJ. 282]. In para 20 of this judgment, this Court has observed as follows : -

"20. If the entire scheme under Regulation 33( 10) is perused it is obvious that if 70% of the slum dwellers on a particular area come together and apply after formation of proposed co -operative housing society, the said application has to be independently considered in accordance with law. The scheme does not contemplate simultaneous consideration of such an application made by a proposed society with an Application subsequently made by another proposed society relating to same land. The Applicant -society has to have 70% support which obviously two societies cannot have. The Application received first is to be processed first independently. If it fails to get 70% support, Second Application can be examined. The obvious intention is to avoid unhealthy competition between the different builders who are interested in supporting such societies. If such a course of simultaneous consideration is permitted to be adopted, unscrupulous persons, and builders will try to win over the hutment dwellers who have supported the application made earlier by another society. Therefore, it is not desirable that an application which is earlier made and the one which is subsequently filed should be considered together. That is not the scheme provided under D. C. Regulation 33(10). It is necessary that the application which is first received in respect of a particular property by the SRA should be processed and decided first. After decision of the first Application, the second Application made by another society can be considered depending on the result of the first Application. The reason is that none of the societies have any right, title and interest in respect of the property. Such a course will prevent the unhealthy competition between the builders or between the leaders of two groups in a slum area."

5. In the present matter, what has happened is that respondent No.5 proposed society submitted its Annexures II and III as required under the relevant Development Control Regulations sometimes in September, 2003. Annexure -II was submitted to the Municipal Corporation, i.