- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 3.
(3.) Only short issue involved in these appeals is with regard to interpretation of the directions issued by this Court by its order dated 7th November, 2006 in I.A. Nos. 2-5 & 8 in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10281 of 2006. It is submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant that the order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition Nos. 1589/2007, 1075/2007 and 1036/2007 on 17th of September, 2009 is contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid order dated 7th November, 2006. In order to appreciate the submissions made by Mr. Rohatgi, it would be necessary to reproduce the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 7th November, 2006 and the directions issued by the High Court in the impugned order dated 17th of September, 2009. On 7th November, 2006, this Court inter alia directed as follows: As directed by the order in Writ Petition No. 988 of 2004 dated 11.03.2005 and order dated 04.05.2006 in Writ Petition No. 1277 of 2006 the SRA is directed to call the two developers, namely M/s. Keya and M/s. Sigtia and dispose of their application for issuing the Letter of Intent and to pass appropriate orders and in accordance with Maharashtra, Slum Areas Improvement, Clearance and RE-development Act, 1971 and also strictly following the procedure for submission processing and approval of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and to Award the Letter of intent to the developer who satisfies the required qualifications and conditions and regulations and the provision of the Act, 1971.;