By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the State Government Resolution dated 15th November 2007 as well as Government Resolution dated 12th March 2009. The Government Resolution dated 15th November 2007 has been purportedly issued on the basis of the directions issued by the Full Bench of this Court on 1st November 2007 in Writ Petition no. 1326 of 2007. Under the said Notification, a committee described therein as High Level Committee or High Power Committee (in short 'HPC') was constituted. The HPC was constituted to look into the illegalities under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in relation to a property known as Tulsiwadi in Mumbai. On the basis of the order dated 18th December 2008 passed by this Court on Notice of Motion no. 126 of 2007 taken out in the said Writ Petition no. 1326 of 2007, another HPC was constituted. The HPC was empowered to look into all the grievances of the slum dwellers in relation to Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. It was directed that the HPC shall hold minimum two meetings every week. It was clarified that the HPC will discharge quasi-judicial functions. Apart from the challenge to the aforesaid two resolutions, a prayer was made for referring the following questions to the Larger Bench of this Court which may be constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice;

“Ouestions of Law

I. Whether u/sec.3K of the Slum Act, the State Government possesses powers to create, establish, appoint a quasi-judicial or judicial body viz. High Power Committee and Whether Judgment given in the matter of Indira SRA Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Shivkripa Builders by this Hon'ble Court (Coram: Smt. Ranjana Desai, Shri Ranjit More, JJ.) as reported in 2012 MHLJ 1107 : [2011(6) ALL MR 221], is per incuriam and hence not binding precedent?

II. Whether Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court, in Tulsiwadi Navnirman Coop Housing Society Ltd. & anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Coram: Kumar Swatanter, C.J., Chandrachud D.Y. (Dr.) & Dharmadhikari S.C.JJ) 2008 (1) Bom.C.R. 1 : [2008(1) ALL MR 318] (Para Nos. 114 (d), 118(D) and 121) has purported to put condition before the Single Bench and/or Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in exercise of their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, hence, this Judgment and subsequent direction given to Registry on 1.11.2007 purporting to amend the Article 226 and Rule and Rule 636 of the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules is per-incuriam and hence not binding precedent?"

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned Government Resolutions provide for deciding the disputes in relation to Slum Rehabilitation Schemes under the Regulation No. 33(10) of the Development Control Regulations for the city of Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the Development Control Regulations). He pointed out that the Development Control Regulations have been framed by exercising power under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTP Act"). He urged that the said Slum Rehabilitation Scheme has nothing to do with the rehabilitation scheme under section 3B (3) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Slum Act"). He urged that there is no power vesting in the State Government either under the MRTP Act or under the Development Control Regulations to constitute a HPC. He pointed out that by Judgment and Order in the case of Indira S.R.A. Co-operative Housing Society Vs. Shivkripa Builders and Developers [2012 (1) Mh.L.J. 107] : [2011(6) ALL MR 221], this Court held that the HPC has been constituted by the State Government by exercising power under section 3K of the Slum Act. He urged that on plain reading of section 3K, the power thereunder of the State Government is confined to giving special directions as to policy. He urged that the said power does not extend to creating HPC and