P.C.

1. Today’s board listing this case was notified four days back (i.e. on 17 January 2025). It is informed to us that the arguing counsel for the petitioners has not filed a leave note, however an application for adjournment is made, which in the fact situation ought not to be entertained. The respondents are all represented who have contentions to advance on the issues as involved.

2. We have perused paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the petition, we have a serious doubt on the locus of the petitioners and more particularly of

petitioner nos.2 to 7 to pursue the present proceedings. Let the petitioners address the Court on their locus. Also the verification to the petition which is by one Mr. Anil Dattatray Karnik does not bring about any clarity in regard to petitioner nos.2 to 7, being in any manner concerned with petitioner no.1-Seawoods Estates Ltd. This more particularly that petitioner nos.2 to 7 are not residents of Seawoods Estates Ltd. in respect of which a grievance as sought to be made.

3. Today by an order passed by this Court on Interim Application No. 10251 of 2024, we had permitted intervention of Ms. Leela Varma, who is now the added respondent in the writ petition.

4. Ms. S