( 1 ) HEARD counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr. Mattos, learned AGP for respondent nos. l to 3 waives service. Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate, waives service on behalf of respondent no. 5.

( 3 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner nos. 1 to 19 have impugned the order passed by the respondent no. 3 - Executive engineer, Bandra Division, Mumbai Board, giving 48 hours to petitioner nos. l to 19 (non-co-operative members) to evict the tenements in their use, occupation and possession as mentioned against their names, failing which they be summarily evicted under section 95-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act ).

( 4 ) RESPONDENT No. 4 - Kher Nagar ganeshkrupa Co-operative Housing Society limited is a registered Co-operative Housing society and is the licensee of the respondent no. l - Maharashtra Housing and Area development Authority (MHADA) in respect of its lands and is the owner of the building no. 34, Kher Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai -400 051. The petitioners are the 19 out of 54 members of respondent no. 4 society holding their respective flats.

( 5 ) IN the year 2003, the members of respondent no. 4 society decided to re-develop its property. 45 out of 54 members of respondent no. 4 (including petitioner nos. 10 to 19) issued consent letters in support of the redevelopment project. However, petitioner nos. l to 9 had not signed the consent letters. 83% of the total members of respondent no. 4 society therefore, supported the re-development project. Thereupon, the respondent no. 4 applied to respondent no. 1 (MHADA) for its no objection certificate. On 9th January, 2004, respondent no. 1 (MHADA) issued its No objection Certificate for redevelopment to respondent no. 4. On 19th June, 2004, the authorities under the Bombay Municipal corporation Act, issued an IOD to respondent no. 4 society. In the year 2007, 34 members of the society vacated their tenements and shifted to the temporary alternative accommodation allotted to them. However, the petitioners who had since the year 2004 started opposing the redevelopment of the society's property through respondent no. 5 (the developer)refused to vacate their tenements.

( 6 ) IN the year 2007, respondent no. 5 i. e. the developer filed in the City Civil Court, mumbai S. C. Suit Lodging No. 2697 of 2007 against the petitioners for a permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from obstructing, interfering with the performance of obligations under the development agreement dated 17th June, 2003 and for interim orders seeking appointment of Receiver in respect of the premises of the petitioners with power to take possession thereof and to deliver the same to the respondent no. 5 for demolition. Respondent no. 5 applied for interim orders which were granted by an order dated 1st september, 2007. The petitioners preferred an appeal before this Court from the said order dated 1st September, 2007. At the ad-interim stage, this Court stayed the order passed by the city Civil Court dated 1st September, 2007 and the said appeal is pending in this Court till date. Thereafter, respondent nos. 10 to 18 who had already given their individual written consent in the year 2003, after more than four years, executed declarations withdrawing their consent for the redevelopment project.

( 7 ) THEREAFTER, show cause notices dated 10th August, 2009 were issued by respondent no. 3 to the petitioners under section 95-A of the MHADA Act. The petitioners opposed the show cause notice by their advocate's letters dated 13th August, 2009 and 2nd September, 2009. The petitioners also filed in this Court Writ Petition No. 1802 of 2009 challenging the show cause notices all dated 10th August, 2009 which petition is pending. Between September, 2009 and December, 2009, respondent no. 3 proceeded with the hearing of the show cause notices and by the impugned order dated 29th December, 2009, respondent no. 3 called upon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document