ORDER : 1. Delay condoned. 2. This petition arises from a order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 10-9-2024 in Writ Petition No. 9770/2024 by which the High Court disposed of ..the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.1 - herein (original petitioner) directing the original Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 respectively before the High Court to maintain status-quo till the proceedings before the Maharashtra, RERA come to an end. 3. The impugned order reads thus:- "2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for the following substantive reliefs: "(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or direction(s) or Order(s) directing the MahaRE-RA Authority, Mumbai, to urgently expedite hearing and/or to deal with the Complaint No.CCOO6OOOOOO395566 of 2023 as also with the Miscellaneous Application therein for urgent Interim Reliefs, pending with the MahaRERA Authority, Mumbai and filed by the Petitioners herein against the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5. B. That, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the effect, operation, implementation and/or execution of the Cancellation Letter dated 08.05.2024 (Exhibit-'K') issued by the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to the Petitioners herein and further directing to maintain "status quo" till final hearing and disposal of the said Complaint No.CCOO6OOOOOO395566 of 2023 and also the Miscellaneous Application filed therein pending with the MahaRERA Authority, Mumbai." 3. Dr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is some urgency in the proceedings as respondent Nos.3 to 5 although were to put the petitioners in possession of the premises subject matter of allotment letter dated 19 December 2012 (page 40) including the further correspondence between the parties, the respondents have failed to do so. His contention is that in these circumstances, the petitioners had approached respondent No.2 in the proceedings of Complaint No.CCOO6OOOOOO395566 of 2023, however, as neither the said proceedings are being taken up by MahaRERA as also no orders are being passed on the Interim Application, hence, the petitioners were constrained to file the present petition. He submits that if ad-interim protection is not granted pending the proceedings before respondent No.2, serious prejudice would likely to be caused. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the correspondence between the parties. 4. We have perused the record. He submits that if ad-interim protection is not granted pending the proceedings before respondent No.2, serious prejudice would likely to be caused. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the correspondence between the parties. 4. We have perused the record. As the only substantive prayer is that the Court should pass orders expediting the hearing of Complaint Complaint No.CC006000QD0395566 of 2023 as also that the Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioner be decided by respondent No.2, we are of the opinion that keeping open all contentions of the parties, it is appropriate that MahaRERA takes up the Interim Application filed by the petitioners and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties, pass appropriate orders on the same. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open. 5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that respondent Nos. 3 to 5 shall maintain status quo in regard to the premises subject matter of allotment to the petitioners till further appropriate orders are passed by MahaRERA Authorities on the Interim Application and/or on the Complaint whichever is earlier. 6. Ordered accordingly. 7. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. 8. In view of disposal of the petition, pending Interim Applications are also disposed of. 9. Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order." 4. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners - herein has a very serious grievance to redress. He would submit that the peculiar nature of the impugned order passed by the High Court has caused immense prejudice to his clients. 5. According to Mr. Kaul, the original Writ Petition i.e. Writ Petition No.9770/2024 was filed sometime in May, 2024. Thereafter, the matter came up for haring on 18-7-2024 and 31-7-2024 respectively. However, on both the dates, the matter could not be taken up for hearing by the High Court due to paucity of time. 6. On 10-9-2024, a praecipe was served at 11.45 am in the morning by e.mail informing the petitioners - herein that the matter had been mentioned before the Bench and the same would be taken up for urgent hearing at 2.30 p.m. on the very same day. 7. Mr. 6. On 10-9-2024, a praecipe was served at 11.45 am in the morning by e.mail informing the petitioners - herein that the matter had been mentioned before the Bench and the same would be taken up for urgent hearing at 2.30 p.m. on the very same day. 7. Mr. Kaul would submit that his clients hardly had any time to even file an appropriate reply opposing the petition, more particularly, the reliefs prayed for therein. He submitted that the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by passing an order of status-quo till appropriate orders are passed by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, State of Maharashtra. 8. Mr. Chitranshul A. Sinha, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the assignee of the original lenders. According to him, the entire project has been financed by the lenders in favour of the petitioners - herein and the property has been mortgaged with the lenders. 9. We are of the view that if at all the High Court wanted to pass an order directing the Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 before it to maintain status-quo then at least an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioners - herein to file appropriate reply. 10. At one stage, we were inclined to remit the matter to the High Court with a view to give an opportunity to the petitioners to put forward their case. However, that again may not serve any good purposes as it may consume lot of time. 11. We are inclined to dispose of this petition with a direction to the RERA, Maharashtra to take up the proceedings pending before it between the parties and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, without fail within a period of four weeks from today. We accordingly issue such directions. 12. We clarify that the order of status-quo passed by the High Court shall operate till appropriate decision is taken by RERA within the time period as stipulated above. 13. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 14. Dasti is permitted. 15. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.