JUDGMENT

M.S.KARNIK, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The issue involved in these writ petitions is common, hence decided by a common judgment.

2. The challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated September 21, 2022 passed by the Respondent no.3 on an application made under Sec. 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereafter "the said Act", for short). The occupants-petitioners of two rooms in respect of a ground floor structure having 8 units are before this Court. The majority of the members agreed for redevelopment and consequently a development agreement dated December 24, 2021 was entered into between the developer and the Society. These two petitioners are the two occupants who are opposing the redevelopment. The redevelopment is under Regulation 33(5) of the DC Regulations.

3. Assailing the impugned order passed by the competent authority i.e. Respondent no.3 under Sec. 95A of the said Act, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the said order does not take into consideration the interest of the members of the Society. Placing reliance on a Circula