(1) THE letter dated 11/7/1986, addressed by certain Mrs Manibai Shivlal Shah, was treated by this court as a writ petition and was directed to be disposed of along with Writ Petition No. 404 of 1986, where certain questions pertaining to the correctness of the law laid down in H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra were sought to be raised. (2) WE are afraid, this petition borders on abuse of the process of court. The petitioner is the wife of a former I.C.S. Officer and who, it is admitted, owns her own flat in Darya Mahal, Church Gate Reclamation, said to be a very prominent locality in Bombay. The present flat in Lily court was requisitioned by the government for allotment to her on the ground that she was a homeless person. She continued to occupy the flat till her death, while all the time she must have enjoyed the rents and profits from the flat owned by her. Later on, her legal representatives claim to be in possession. In the year 1984, Respondents 3 and 4 who were the owners of the property in Lily court filed a writ petition for quashing the order of requisition pursuant to which the allotment was made to the petitioner. The High court by its order dated 4/11/1985, following the pronouncement of this court in the said Vora case has quashed the order of requisition. However, High court granted time to yield up and deliver vacant possession up to 25/12/1988. This order of the High court not having been appealed against became final and the order of requisition stood quashed and set aside. (3) THEREAFTER on 11/7/1986, the petitioner addressed a letter to the then chief justice of India who, having treated the letter as a writ petition, is sued an order of stay of dispossession, pursuant to which the said legal representatives of the said Mrs Manibai Shivial Shah continued to remain in possession. (4) WHATEVER might be the merits of the contentions in regard to the correctness or otherwise of the decision in Vora case, we think, on the facts of this case, we should decline to interfere. (4) WHATEVER might be the merits of the contentions in regard to the correctness or otherwise of the decision in Vora case, we think, on the facts of this case, we should decline to interfere. There are no grounds to think that there has been any miscarriage of justice so as to allow the petitioner to bypass the usual hierarchy of appeals and virtually seek to challenge the order of the High court by a side-wind as it were long after it assumed finality not having been assailed in a manner known to or recognised by law. (5) THE interlocutory application filed for amending the prayer is dismissed. The writ petition is also dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. (6) BY agreement of parties including the State of Maharashtra, it is directed that possession be directly handed over to Respondents 3-4. The legal representatives who are in occupation shall hand over possession by 31/3/1994 failing which the government shall take coercive steps to evict them and put Respondents 3-4 in possession. Time granted up to 31/3/1994 is subject to the legal representatives and those in occupation, filing the usual undertaking in this court within a period of three weeks from today.