JUDGMENT:- Rule in all the writ petitions, returnable forthwith. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we have taken up the Rule for final disposal. 3. All these petitions challenge the order dated 30th June 20 10 passed by the High Powered Committee in regard to the slum rehabilitation scheme in respect of the lands in question. 4. The facts leading to filing of these petitions broadly stated are as under :- i) On the lands in question in Parel, Mumbai, whose occupants have formed a cooperative housing society called "Khapridev cooperative housing society limited" (hereinafter referred to as "the cooperative society"), the Slum Redevelopment Committee (SRD) had sanctioned a slum redevelopment scheme and had issued a letter of intent dated 8 November 1995 in favour of a developer called M/s Priyanka Developers. The intimation of approval of the plans for one of the rehabilitation buildings in the same scheme was also granted in favour of the said developer on 8 November 1995. However, the said developer M/s Priyanka Developers failed to show any progress in implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme. At a meeting held on II January 2003, the general body of the co-operative society proposed that in place of M/s Priyanka Developers, a new developer called "M/s.Villayati Ram Mittal" be appointed for implementation of the said slum rehabilitation scheme. Accordingly, M/s Villayati Ram Mittal., came to be appointed as developers for the slum redevelopment scheme. ii) On 17 January 2003 Annexure-II was issued by Mumbai Municipal Corporation and by conversion of the Slum Redevelopment Scheme to Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, fresh L.O.I. was issued by SRA on 11.08.2003 in the name of respondent no.3-M/s Villayati Ram Mittal under Development Control Regulation 33(1) read with Appendix. Permission to construct Transit Camp was issued by SRA to M/s Villayati Ram Mittal vide No.SRA/Eng/6761 FS/ML/LOI dated 11.07.2003. iii) The society entered into development agreement with M/s Villayati Ram Mittal on 13.4.2004 and also executed Power of Attorney in favour of the latter. In the year 2004, the developer constructed accommodation for transit camp as per the permissions granted by the SRA. Simultaneously, the developer also commenced the work of rehabilitation building without obtaining IOA/CC from the concerned departments. In the year 2004, the developer constructed accommodation for transit camp as per the permissions granted by the SRA. Simultaneously, the developer also commenced the work of rehabilitation building without obtaining IOA/CC from the concerned departments. On inspection by the concerned officials of the SRA, it was found that the developer had constructed rehabilitation building up to 6th floor on the D.P. Road and outside the slum boundary, and therefore, on 11.11.2004, stop work notice was issued by SRA to the said construction of rehab building. iv) By a letter dated 19 August 2005, respondent No.2 society Informed the SRA that the society had lost confidence in respondent No.3 M/s. Villayati Ram Mittal and forwarded copy of the said resolution dated 14 August 2005. The co-operative society in its general body meeting passed a resolution to rescind the development agreement with M/s Villayati Ram Mittal on the ground that due, to improper construction of work in respect of rehabilitation building, the coupa operative society had expressed concern about the quality of work carried out by M/s Villayati Ram Mittal in respect of one rehabilitation building which was the only rehabilitation building constructed. v) The SRA then issued a show cause notice dated 16 September 2005 (Exhibit "H") to respondent No.3 calling upon respondent No.3 to show cause why the LOI issued in favour of respondent No.3 should not be terminated on the following grounds: (a) the work of rehabilitation building was carried out without obtaining commencement certificate; (b) part of the rehabilitation building was carried out on DP road without having obtained approval for rehabilitation thereof; and (c) respondent No.3 had carried out construction of rehabilitation building beyond the approved slum rehabilitation scheme/plot boundary on approved property. vi) Respondent No.3 sent reply dated 29 September 2005 (Exhibit "T") to Slum Rehabilitation Authority admitting that the rehabilitation building was constructed outside the plot boundary, but respondent No.3 contended that SRA had given an oral assurance to approve the slum rehabilitation scheme in respect of other plot of land also. vii) On 1 October 2005, respondent No.2 society at a special general body meeting passed a resolution removing respondent No.3 as developer and appointing M/s. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. as a developer. vii) On 1 October 2005, respondent No.2 society at a special general body meeting passed a resolution removing respondent No.3 as developer and appointing M/s. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. as a developer. viii) Ultimately on the basis of the aforesaid, respondent No.2 society gave a notice dated 17 October 2005 terminating the development agreement and cancelling the power of attorney in favour of M/s Villayati Ram Mittal (respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No. 16061 2010). Thereafter, by order dated 2 March 2006, SRA removed respondent No.3 as developer on the ground that the progress of respondent No.3 for the rehabilitation scheme was not satisfactory and that by resolutions dated 14 August 2005 and I October 2005, respondent No.2 society had removed respondent No.3 as their developer and also on the ground that respondent No.3 had carried out construction beyond the boundary of slum plot and in violation of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and that M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. is appointed as the developer. ix) M/s. Villayati Ram Mittal challenged the aforesaid order of SRA by filing Writ Petition No.1685 of 2006. In the said writ petition, this Court passed an interim order on 2 August 2006. The opemtive portion of the said interim order read as under : "2. Amongst various questions that arise, one of the question that arises in this matter, in view of the facts on record is as to what is the remedy of a party like the petitioner who has acted on the L.O.I and spent money. It must be borne in mind that S.R.A. Scheme is for the socially and economically disadvantage group who wil1 not be in a position to pay for any damages if the petitioner succeeds in the event a suit for specific performance lies. In these circumstances considering the Scheme of the S.R.A. and the undertaking given by the new developer to S.R.A. to reimburse any claims, the question will arise as to who is liable in the event the petitioner succeeds in the appropriate proceedings to indemnify and/or pay to the petitioner whether it be the society or S.R.A. or the new Developer. Apart from that there are other questions which are required to be gone into. Hence Rule. Interim relief granted earlier to continue pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition. 3. Apart from that there are other questions which are required to be gone into. Hence Rule. Interim relief granted earlier to continue pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition. 3. Considering the nature of the controversy and as the S.R.A. scheme is being stayed, in our opinion it will be appropriate that the petition itself is heard and finally disposed of. In the light of that, place the matter on Board for final hearing on 20th September, 2006 at 3.00 p.m." x) Ultimately, when the said writ petition came up for hearing before the Division Bench, by order dated 12 December 2007, M/s Villayati Ram Mittal was relegated to the alternative remedy of approaching High Powered Committee which was established by the State Government pursuant to the judgment dated 1 November 2007 of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Tulsiwadi Navnirman Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. and another vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No. 1326 of 2007 and others: [2008(1) ALL MR 3181]. Immediately thereafter, on 17 December 2007, the petitioner moved Notice of Motion No.620 of 2007 for recalling the said order dated 12 December 2007. However, on 22 October 2008, the Notice of Motion came to be disposed of in terms of the following order: "The learned counsel appearing for the applicant wishes to withdraw this notice of motion with liberty to raise all the issues raised in this petition before the High Powered Committee. Notice of motion is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. xi) In the meantime, respondent No.3 filed Suit No. 719 of 2008 against Slum Rehabilitation Authority and the Government of Maharashtra claiming damages and loss of profit for Rs.66.85 crores alleging illegal termination. xii) In the meantime, M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd., who were appointed as developer as per the order dated 2 March 2006 obtained IOA dated 8 June 2006 and commencement certificate dated 21 April 2008 and provided transit accommodation to 408 slum dwellers by paying compensation/~ent for temporary transit accommodation. xii) In the meantime, M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd., who were appointed as developer as per the order dated 2 March 2006 obtained IOA dated 8 June 2006 and commencement certificate dated 21 April 2008 and provided transit accommodation to 408 slum dwellers by paying compensation/~ent for temporary transit accommodation. xiii) Ultimately, the appeal filed by M/s Villayati Ram Mittal came to be heard by the High Powered Committee and by the impugned order dated 30 June 2010 the High Powered Committee remanded the matter to SRA after making observations in respect of the following issues : The High Powered Committee observed that the regularisation order was passed after considering the two irregularities being: (a) construction work was carried out without IOA and commencement certificate; and (b) construction was made on the alignment of the D.P. road. The High Powered Committee, however, noticed that respondent No.3 had also done construction of rehabilitation building outside the boundary of the development plot and the High Powered Committee, therefore, had grave doubts about validity of the regularisation order which was passed without considering this encroachment on the land outside the development plot. Hence, the regularisation order stood vitiated and was required to be re-visited. The High Powered Committee also observed that the SRA had passed the impugned order dated 2 March 2006 without making any reference to the regularisation order and, therefore, the said order removing respondent No.3 as developer was also required to be set aside. 5. It is against the aforesaid order that M/s. Viilayati Ram Mittal has filed Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 2103 of 2010 challenging that part of the order in which the High Powered Committee has made observations about regularisation order being required to be revisited. 6. Respondent No.2 society has also challenged the order dated 30 June 2006 vide Writ Petition No. 1999 of 2010, in so far as the order dated 2 March 2006 has been set aside and the matter is remanded to SRA which is also challenged by M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt Ltd. in Writ Petition No.1606 of 2010. 7. 6. Respondent No.2 society has also challenged the order dated 30 June 2006 vide Writ Petition No. 1999 of 2010, in so far as the order dated 2 March 2006 has been set aside and the matter is remanded to SRA which is also challenged by M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt Ltd. in Writ Petition No.1606 of 2010. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1606 of 2010 M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. has assailed the order dated 30 June 2006 on the ground that when the High Powered Committee itself has given a finding that regularisation order passed by SRA in respect of one rehabilitation building put up by M/s Villayati Ram Mittal required reconsideration and the High Powered Committee noticed various irregularities committed by M/s Villayati Ram Mittal, there was no justification for setting aside the order removing M/s Villayati Ram Mittal as the developer and appointing M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt Ltd as the developer. Both the learned counsel for respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal and learned counsel for respondent No.2 society have submitted that the scheme for redevelopment of slum was sanctioned way back in the year 1995 and thereafter it was sanctioned in favour of M/s Villayati Ram Mittal; that the first developer M/s Priyanka Developer had not done anything for four years from 1995 to 1999 and thereafter M/s Villayati Ram Mittal had not made sufficient progress for seven years. It is, therefore, submitted that there was full justification for respondent No.2 society to remove M/s Villayati Ram Mittal as a developer and to appoint M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt Ltd. as the developer. It is also submitted that the resolutions passed by respondent No.2 society on 14 August 2005 and I October 2005 were not challenged by M/s Villayati Ram Mittal and, therefore, the High Powered Committee could not have set aside the subsequent order of SRA removing M/s Villayati Ram Mittal as developer and appointing M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt Ltd as the developer. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already taken number of steps in implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme as indicated in paragraph 31 of writ petition No. 1606 of 2010. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already taken number of steps in implementation of the slum rehabilitation scheme as indicated in paragraph 31 of writ petition No. 1606 of 2010. It is submitted that M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. have already provided temporary accommodation for 432 families including 359 eligible slum dwellers and 73 project affected persons who are going to be given rehabilitation tenements admeasuring 269.10 sq. ft. each. It is also submitted that MIs Villayati Ram Mittal already elected to file suit for damages on 21 January 2008 (Suit No.719 of 2008 before this Court) challenging termination of contract, it is not open to M/s Villayati Ram Mittal to claim any right for revival of terminated LOI. The petitioner has also started construction and has furnished bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.2.72 crores and has also furnished further performance security in the form of revised bank guarantee of Rs.3.70 crores to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The petitioner has also obtained environment clearance. The Petitioner has also executed deed of indemnity in favour of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in respect of any claims made M/s Villayati Ram Mittal. M/s.Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd have started excavation for laying pile foundations and the construction work is under progress. It is submitted that it is only on account of the letter 11 August 2010 issued by Slum Rehabilitation Authority directing the petitioner to maintain status, quo that the petitioner is not able to carryon the construction. It is submitted that on account of the said action and pendency of the present proceedings, 359 families of slum dwellers and 73 families of projected affected persons, in all 432 families are being denied their right to get permanent alternative accommodation in the form of rehabilitation buildings for which M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt Ltd have made all the arrangements and have also started construction work. 8. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 M/s. Villayati Ram Mittal has opposed the petition filed by M/s. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt Ltd and has also challenged that part of the order by which the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has set aside the order of regularisation which was made in favour of respondent No.3 as far back as on 23 June 2005. It is further submitted that when the matter is at large before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, as per the impugned order dated 30 June 2010 of the High Powered Committee, this Court may not entertain the challenge levelled by M/s. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt Ltd and respondent No.2 society. It is submitted that ifthe Slum Rehabilitation Authority upholds the decision to regularise the rehabilitation building, the entire basis of removal of respondent No.3 as a developer will disappear and respondent No.3 will be entitled to get back the rights to develop the property under the slum rehabilitation scheme. 9. As regards the petitioner's contention that respondent No.3 has already filed Suit No.719 of 2008 on 21 January 2008, respondent No.3 had elected to claim damages and given up the right to develop the property, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 (M/s Villayati Ram Mittal) has submitted that the suit was filed only in order to save limitation, but once the High Powered Committee has set aside the impugned order dated 2 March 2006 of Slum Rehabilitation Authority, there is no question of respondent No.3 now being required to prosecute the suit. It is submitted that nothing further is required to be done except to restore the regularisation decision of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority in favour of M/s Villayati Ram Mittal. 10. In response to a specific query from the Court about the cost of construction incurred by respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal till respondent No.3 was removed as developer by the order dated 2 March 2006 of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal stated that he was not in a position to give a specific reply, but in any case respondent No.3 was only interested in getting the right as a developer under the scheme or to get damages and that respondent No.3 was not as such interested merely in recovering cost of construction incurred on the rehabilitation building. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we cannot help noticing that the slum redevelopment scheme was sanctioned and M/s. Priyanka Developer was appointed as the developer as far back as in the year 1995. Nothing was done by the said developer and, therefore, respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal was appointed as a developer under the slum redevelopment scheme. Nothing was done by the said developer and, therefore, respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal was appointed as a developer under the slum redevelopment scheme. It appears that no progress was made till the slum redevelopment scheme was substituted by the slum rehabilitation scheme and the letter of intent under the slum rehabilitation scheme came to be issued in favour of respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal on 11 August 2003. From II August 2003 till 2 March 2006, when respondent No.3 came to be removed as developer, all that respondent No.3 had done was constructing the RCC structure of ground floor plus six stories of only one wing of one of the two rehabilitation buildings that respondent No.3 was required to put up. Having regard to the stand of Slum Rehabilitation Authority ttat one wing of the rehabilitation building could provide only about 64 tenements, it would mean that construction put up by respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal would be sufficient for hardly about 64 slum dwelling families out of total 432 families who are to be accommodated. In other words, respondent No.3 has hardly completed only 1/7th of the work required to be done by respondent No.3. The photographs of the construction site have been shown to us and we find that it is only the RCC structure without any walls or partitions. 12. In the above background, we have to examine the legality or otherwise of the order dated 30 June 2010 of the High Powered Committee and the order dated 2 March 2006 of the slum rehabilitation authority. 13. Having considered the matter in the background of the above facts and particularly the fact that the slum dwellers have remained without any permanent alternative accommodation for the last many years and also having regard to the fact that the order of the High Powered Committee itself has created serious doubt about the regularisation decision of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 23 June 2005, we are of the view that jf no regularisation is granted in respect of the rehabilitation building constructed by respondent No.3 the entire structure put up by respondent No.3 will have to be demolished. 14. 14. On the other hand, even if the structure put up .by respondent No.3 is regularised, it would mean that the structure would be allowed to stand, but that does not necessarily mean that the decision to remove respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal and to appoint M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt Ltd as a developer would be vitiated on account of regularisation. The fact that respondent No.3 had constructed a part of the rehabilitation building on D.P. road without having obtained approval for realignment and that respondent No.3 had carried out construction of rehabilitation building beyond the approved slum rehabilitation scheme plot boundary, are prima facie serious allegations. The High Powered Committee has already expressed its views on the subject and remanded the matter back to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for reconsidering the decision to regularise. In this set of circumstances, we are of the view that the decision of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority to remove respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal as developer and having regard to the fact that respondent No.2 society had already passed resolutions on 14 August 2005 and 1 October 2005 expressing its loss of confidence in respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal, cannot be ignored. 15. The learned counsel for respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal has relied on the decision of this Court in Awdesh Vasistha Tiwari and others vs Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and others, 2006 (4) Mh. L.J. 282 : (2006(4) ALL MR 67), wherein this Court had made the following observations : - "13. ...... Thus, the right of a hutment dweller who is in possession of a hutment on an area to which the Scheme is made applicable is for a tenement admeasuring 225 sq. ft. in exchange of the hut irrespective of the area of the hut. Thus, an individual hutment dweller gets this limited right apart from right to seek protection from eviction under section 3Z(1), of the Slum Act. However, there is nothing in the scheme of D.C. Regulation 33(10) that an individual slum dweller gets a right to decide which Society or which developer should implement the scheme." 16. Thus, an individual hutment dweller gets this limited right apart from right to seek protection from eviction under section 3Z(1), of the Slum Act. However, there is nothing in the scheme of D.C. Regulation 33(10) that an individual slum dweller gets a right to decide which Society or which developer should implement the scheme." 16. It is true that as per the aforesaid judgment of this Court, the individual slum dweller may not have a right to decide which society or developer should implement the scheme, but when the society itself has lost confidence in the developer whose acts of omission and commission have already been taken into consideration by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority found substance in the grievances of the society, it is not possible to say that the views of the entire co-operative society become irrelevant. The very fact that the scheme of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority provides that the developer should obtain consent of 70% of the members of the society goes to show that the developer should have confidence of the society. May be after the LOI is issued in favour of the developer, if for some extraneous reasons the society passes a resolution for removing the developer without any justification, the views of the society may not be acted upon by Slum Rehabilitation Authority. 17. Our attention is invited by the learned counsel for Slum Rehabilitation Authority to the provisions of section 13(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971, which reads as under : "13. Power of Slum Rehabilitation Authority to develop slum Rehabilitation area. : (1) ..... (2) Where on declaration of any area as a Slum Rehabilitation Area the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, is satisfied that the land in the Slum Rehabilitation Area has been or is being developed by the owner in contravention of the plans duly approved, or any restriction or conditions imposed under sub-section (10) of section 12, or has not been developed within the time, if any, specified under such conditions, it may, by order, determine to develop the land by entrusting it to any agency recognised by it for the purpose : - Provided that, before passing such order, the owner shall be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why the order should not be passed"." 18. In view of the above, we are of the view that the order passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 2 March 2006 removing respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal and appointing M/s. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. as developer was not without any authority and that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 2 March 2006 was for valid reasons, more particularly when M/s Villayati Ram Mittal has already filed Suit No.719 of 2008 before this (Court for damages challenging the termination of LOI issued by Slum Rehabilitation Authority in favour of M/s Villayati Ram Mittal. Since M/s Villayati Ram Mittal has already elected to sue for damages, it cannot now be permitted to challenge the appointment of M/s Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd as the developer. Otherwise, the project for rehabilitation of slum dwellers will be further delayed much against the wishes of the members of Khapridev Co-operative Housing Society Ltd who are waiting for the redevelopment of their dwellings/rehabilitation since 1995. 19. It is true that the order dated 2 March 2096 of Slum Rehabilitation Authority did not refer to the regularisation order. However, as discussed above, regularisation of a wing of the rehabilitation building could mean that that construction put up by respondent No.3 is not to be demolished. Slum Rehabilitation Authority has not passed any order 3S to what is to be done with regard to the construction. Hence, while allowing Writ Petition No.1606 of 2010 and Writ Petition No.1999 of 2010 and while setting aside the order dated 30 June 2010 of the High Powered Committee, we restore the order dated 2 March 2006 of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority with the following further directions : - (1) The Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall consider whether regularisation should be granted in respect of the construction put up by respondent No.3 in light of the fact that respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal had put up the construction beyond the boundary of slum plot. If the Slum Rehabilitation Authority decides not to regularise the said construction, that will be the end of the matter and the pending construction will have to be demolished; 2) However, if the Slum Rehabilitation Authority decides to regularise the construction, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority will get the said construction valued by a competent agency and direct the Petitioner-M/s. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. to deposit with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority the said cost of construction with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with fifteen percent return on such investment (i.e. return on cost of construction plus interest) as directed above. Such amount shall be required to be deposited by the petitioner-M/s. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. with Slum Rehabilitation Authority within one month after the competent agency calculates cost of construction and the Slum Rehabilitation Authority gives the intimation to the Petitioner-M/s. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd; (3) The amounts so deposited with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority shall be paid to respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal if respondent No.3 agrees to accept the said amount in full and final settlement of its claim against Slum Rehabilitation Authority, State of Maharashtra and the petitioner-M/s. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd; (4) In case respondent No.3 M/s Villayati Ram Mittal does not wish to accept the said amount, the amount shall stand transferred to the account of Suit No.719 of 2008 of respondent No.3 pending before this Court and shall be invested in fixed deposit for a period of one year under the cumulative interest scheme to be renewed periodically without any further orders of this Court and such deposit shall abide by the final orders which will be passed in the said Suit. 20. All the three Writ Petitions accordingly stand disposed of. 21. At this stage, learned counsel for M/s Villayati Ram Mittal prays that the order of status quo passed by Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 11 August 2010 may be continued for a period of four weeks to enable M/s Villayati Ram Mittal to have further recourse in accordance with law. . 22. 21. At this stage, learned counsel for M/s Villayati Ram Mittal prays that the order of status quo passed by Slum Rehabilitation Authority on 11 August 2010 may be continued for a period of four weeks to enable M/s Villayati Ram Mittal to have further recourse in accordance with law. . 22. Learned counsel for the other parties vehemently oppose the request and point out that Slum Rehabilitation Authority had stayed the order dated 11 August 2010 in view of the order dated 30 June 2010 of the High Powered Committee, because the High Powered Committee had set aside the order dated 2 March 2006 of Slum Rehabilitation Authority and, therefore, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1606 of 2010- M/s. Omkar Realtors and Developers Pvt. Ltd. was not supposed to carry out any construction work. 23. It is also submitted that the slum dwellers have remained without any permanent rehabilitation accommodation for the last several years as indicated in this order and, therefore, also the prayer for stay should not be accepted. 24. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties on the above question, we find considerable substance in the submissions made on behalf of the other parties. Hence, prayer for stay is rejected. Ordered accordingly.