JUDGMENT : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the eight shop keepers, whose shops/offices are situated at Ground Floor of ‘F’ and ‘G’ Wings of Malad Ganga Co-operative Housing Society Limited., at Malad, Mumbai. 2. The Malad Ganga Co-operative Society Limited compromises of seven Wings. Members of Five Wings have already vacated the building and the buildings have been demolished. The remaining two buildings, not demolished, are Wing ‘F’ and ‘G’ and the total occupants of these two buildings are 43 members. The members of residential flat of these two buildings 30 in number, have already vacated the building. But remaining 13 members who are shop owners, are said to be still occupying these buildings. However, only eight members have filed the present Writ Petition. 3. The Petitioners have filed this Petition seeking reliefs, which read as under :- “a. That this Petition be admitted; b. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate Writ directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to demolish the first to fourth floors of said F and G Wing of Respondent No.5 as per the Impugned Notice leaving aside the premises of these Petitioners; c. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate Writ partially setting aside the Impugned Notice dated 11/08/2022 bearing ref NO.PN/D01PN/047/354-MMC ACT/PN733N01 issued by Respondent No.3 as being arbitrary, illegal and void with respect to the premises of these Petitioners; d. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate Writ directing the matter be referred to Technical Advisory Committee i.e. TAC in case after partial enforcement of the Impugned Notice with respect first to fourth floors of said F and G Wing of Respondent No.5, as two fresh contrary Structural Audit Reports would be received from these Petitioners and Respondent No.5 with respect to the Ground floor of said F and G Wing of Respondent No.5 (i.e. the Shops/Offices of these Petitioners); e. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate Writ directing the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to ensure the continuity of water and electricity supply to these Petitioners and direct Respondent No.5 to pay the pending Water Bills of Respondent No.5 till date; f. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any appropriate Writ directing the Respondent Nos 1 to 5 to take adequate precaution so as not to damage the structures of said F and G Wing of respondent No.5 while undertaking the Demolition of the A to E Wings of respondent No. 5; g. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Writ Petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 through any of its Officers and/or agents from taking any coercive steps against these Petitioners Ground Floor Shop Nos. 1 to 13 which shall be not demolished (whose list is annexed at Exhibit-"A in Colly" to this Petition) and remaining Top Floor of F and G Wing of Respondent No 5 i.e. First Floor to Fourth Floor shall be demolished by Respondent No. 1 to 5 and/or by the Petitioners at their own cost. h. That pending the hearing and final disposal of this present Wit Petition and Respondent No 1 to 4 be allowed to demolished the remaining Top Floors of said F and G Wing of Respondent No 5 i.e. First Floor to Fourth Floor i.e. Ground Floor Shop Nos. 1 to 13 (whose list is annexed at Exhibit-"A in Colly" to this Petition) which shall be not demolished, 4. This matter was heard on 25th July, 2023 and during the hearing on 25th July, 2023. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners stated that his clients have not been provided with development agreement (for short ‘D.A.’ ) by the builder and/or the society, which has been provided to the other members of the society. 5. Today Mr. Pai while starting his argument has admitted that now his client has received a copy of the D.A. 6. Mr. Pai, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that it is the Petitioners case that they are not opposing the redevelopment. Their concern is that, what will their fate be after the buildings are demolished? Whether they would be accommodated in the same place and Which location would be their shops? and also whether they will be getting the same area as other members of the society? 7. Mr. Their concern is that, what will their fate be after the buildings are demolished? Whether they would be accommodated in the same place and Which location would be their shops? and also whether they will be getting the same area as other members of the society? 7. Mr. Pai also insisted us to look into various clauses of the development agreement. It was his contention that as per clauses of the D.A. the developer could not vacate them, if they are not ready to vacate. 8. Mr. Pai further stated that the developer with the help of the Corporation is illegally trying to vacate the Petitioners. Mr. Pai further stated that as per the Structural Audit report of the members of the society, the buildings were classified as C-1 category. Petitioners therefore, immediately appointed their structural auditor to carry out the inspection. On 30 July, 2022 the structural auditor of the Petitioners gave his report, which states that the buildings are C-2A category hence, the buildings can be repaired and there is no need for demolishing the buildings. 9. Mr. Pai to support his submission referred to judgment of this Court in the matter of Surendra Vishnu Masurkar V/s. Municipal Commissioner & Anr reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 13116. He submitted that the findings recordings in this particular judgment supports his case. 10. Mr. Khandeparkar on behalf of the society submitted that the petitioners have by their letter dated 29 June, 2022 invoked arbitration clause of the D.A. and have suggested three names to be appointed as arbitrators. Mr. Khandeparkar further submitted that the fact that the Petitioners have invoked arbitration clause from the D.A., shows that the Petitioners are already in possession of a copy of the D.A. and a false submission was made across the bar before this Court, on the last date of the hearing, i.e., 25th July, 2023, that the Petitioners do not have a copy of the development agreement. He further submitted that once the Petitioners have invoked the arbitration clause, they cannot now agitate the issues of D.A. in this Writ Petition and the best course of action for Petitioners would be to file Section 9 Application of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Single Judge of this Court. 11. Mr. He further submitted that once the Petitioners have invoked the arbitration clause, they cannot now agitate the issues of D.A. in this Writ Petition and the best course of action for Petitioners would be to file Section 9 Application of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Single Judge of this Court. 11. Mr. Khandeparkar further added that out of seven buildings five buildings have already been demolished and in the remaining two buildings, the residential flat owners have already vacated and they are agreeable to redevelopment. Therefore, minority members cannot hold up a redevelopment project on the pretext that they are shop owners and first, it has to be decided as to what would be the location of their shops after redevelopment. He further added that just because one shop owner is a wine shop holder, the same does not give any propriety to the Petitioners. To buttress his submissions he further submitted that minority members cannot obstruct the project, which is in interest of entire society. The minority members cannot on their own challenge the D.A. and their remedy is only through the society. Mr. Khandeparkar referred to judgment of Mr. Vipul Ashok Sawant & Ors V/s. Brihan Mumbai Municipal Cororation & Ors., in Writ Petition (L) No. 5466 of 2023, dated 28th February, 2023. 12. Mr. Khandeparkar further stated that the Structural Audit report submitted by the Petitioners is only pertaining to the shop keepers on the ground floor, therefore, the said report cannot be gone into, and has to be rejected. He further stated that the expert committee in the form of TAC has held the building has to be demolished, therefore, this Court cannot thereafter sit in appeal over the said finding of TAC. 13. Mr. Carlos for the Corporation stated that earlier notice under Section 353 A of the MMC, Act, 1888 was issued. However, there was no reply filed to the said notice. Therefore, the Corporation has issued the notice under Section 354 of the MMC, Act, 1888. He further stated that since there was a report of structural auditor stating that the buildings are in dilapidated condition and the Petitioners have filed a separate structural auditor report declaring the buildings C-2A. In view of Conflicting Reports, the Corporation sought the report of TAC. The TAC thereafter going through all the issues have declared the structure as C-1 category. In view of Conflicting Reports, the Corporation sought the report of TAC. The TAC thereafter going through all the issues have declared the structure as C-1 category. He further added that there is no option but to demolish the Buildings. He further stated that rights of all the members of the society are protected along with the rights of the Petitioners, as after demolition of the buildings there would be a redevelopment under which all the members would be occupying as stated by the society. He, therefore, insisted that the Writ Petition should be dismissed with costs. 14. We have heard learned counsel for all the parties and have gone through the record. 15. It is undisputed fact that out of the seven buildings five buildings have been demolished and only two buildings, i.e., Wing F and G are not demolished. It is also not disputed that the residential members of remaining two buildings Wing ‘F’ and ‘G’, from 1st floor to 4th floor have already vacated their premises. It is also not disputed that there are 13 shop keepers on the ground floor, out of which only 8 shop keepers have filed the present Writ Petition. It is however, in dispute if remaining five shop keepers who have not come to Court have vacated their premises or not. 16. The expert committee in the form of TAC by its report dated 7 October, 2022 has already opined that the buildings should be pulled down in their entirety. The structural audit report dated 30 July, 2022 filed by the Petitioners in Para No. 18 states that ground floor structure should not be demolished and can be inhabited after repairing. Validity of the Report dated 30 July, 2022, was six months. 17. There is no legal provision mentioned in the report, or even while arguing the matter by the Petitioners Advocate, to show that such an eventuality is allowed in law and or rules. According to us once a building is declared as C-1 Category building (dangerous structure to be evacuated), then the entire building has to be demolished, and it is doubtful if a partial demolition of a building is permitted in law or not, and in this case no permission of law has been referred to us, which permits such half-hearted action. 18. 18. The Judgment of Surendra Vishnu Marurkar (supra), referred to by the Petitioners, will not be applicable to the present proceedings, as in the said matter, the Corporation had issued the Commencement Certificate under Section 45 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 to the Landlord/Developer, in the absence of an agreement for providing a permanent alternate accommodation to the Petitioner therein, on the terms offered to all the other tenants of the demolished building. The facts of the present proceedings are quiet different from Surendra Vishnu Masurkar (supra), as in the present proceedings the Petitioners are not deprived of their rights of obtaining Permanent Alternate Accommodation. 19. The Judgment of Diwali Darshan C.H.S. Vs. M.C.G.M.- Writ Petition No.3278/2021, dated 14 January, 2022, was a Petition filed for enforcement of Notice of Demolition of the subject building which was categorised as C-1. In view of contrary structural audit reports, the matter was referred to the TAC. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court held that if decision of the TAC is of demolition of building, the Corporation shall take appropriate steps to demolish the building. Therefore, the Judgment passed in Diwali Darshan (supra) does not help the Petitioners in the present proceedings. Paragraph No. 2 to 4 reads as under:- 2. The Petition is filed, essentially seeking enforcement of the notice for demolition of the subject building which has been categorized as C-1. Respondent No.1 has filed a contrary structural Audit Report which is stated to have been annexed to the Appeal from Order No. 3324 of 2020. 3. In view of the 2018 Guidelines of the Respondent Corporation, the matter is referred to the Technical Advisory Committee (TAG). The AC shall take appropriate decision in accordance with the 2018 Guidelines of the Respondent Corporation. 4. In the event the decision of TAC maintains the building as C-1 category, the Respondent Corporation shall take appropriate steps to demolish the building in accordance with law, expeditiously. 20. The Division Bench of this Court in Vipul Ashok Samant (supra) held that the rights of the members of the housing society would be governed through the society and any independent rights qua the society would have to be agitated before another Forum. Paragraph No.8 of the said judgment reads as under :- “8. 20. The Division Bench of this Court in Vipul Ashok Samant (supra) held that the rights of the members of the housing society would be governed through the society and any independent rights qua the society would have to be agitated before another Forum. Paragraph No.8 of the said judgment reads as under :- “8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the documents on record, we do not find that there is any case made out to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioners. At the outset, we may note that the housing society comprises of 208 members of which only nine have approached this Court by the present writ petition. It is the stand of the Society that by a majority it has been resolved not to object to the notice issued under Section 354 of the Act of 1888. Learned counsel for the Society is justified in contending that the rights of the petitioners, who are members of the housing society would be governed through the Society and any independent rights qua the Society would have to be agitated before another forum. … ” 21. We are in agreement with the view taken by the coordinate bench of this Court in Mr. Vipul Ashok Sawant (supra). 22. Petitioners being minority members will have no right to hold up a redevelopment project, when the majority have agreed for the same and have vacated the premises. The Petitioners together are less than 10% of the total members of the Respondent No.5 housing society. Except Petitioners all the other members have vacated their respective premises. 23. Therefore, there is no merit in this Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 24. Mr. Pai prayed that Petitioners remedy arising from the D.A. should be kept open to be pursued before the appropriate Forum/Court. It is admitted fact that the Petitioners have already invoked arbitration clause by issuing notice dated 29 June, 2023, so also admittedly Petitioners are members of Respondent No.5 which is a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960. In view of the same, the Petitioners are free to take such steps, as are advised in accordance with law.