JUDGMENT

S.M.MODAK, J. - Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Talekar for the Petitioner, learned AGP for the Respondent-State and learned Advocate General for Respondent No.2.

2. By two orders/notices dtd. 7/9/2020 and 19/10/2020 issued by the Lands and Estate Manager and Deputy Metropolitan Commissioner of MMRDA, the Petitioner was asked to pay arrears of rent and they were informed of resumption order in case of non compliance.

3. These orders are challenged by the petitioners. Whereas during pendency of this petition, Metropolitan Commissioner of MMRDA as per the order dtd. 7/9/2020 refused to review the earlier orders of resumption. So also the bank guarantee was encashed. Hence by way of amendment to this petition, the petitioner has also challenged those actions.

4. The Respondents have appeared and they have taken objection to maintainability of this Writ Petition apart from denial of the allegations. According to them, remedy of filing Writ Petition as resorted is not permissible by law. The Respondents have justified all actions taken by them.

5. Before going into the issue of maintainability objection and other merits, it will be useful to consider few facts which are releva