Taken on board. This petition is directed against the order dated 26-9-2013 (Campa Cola Residents Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, WP (Lodg.) No. 2465 of 2013, order dated 26-9-2013 (Bom) by which the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court refused to nullify the decision taken by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short the Corporation) not to approve the amended plans submitted on behalf of the petitioners and its members cooperative housing societies.

By detailed order dated 27-2-2013 (Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. V. Municipal Corpn. of Mumbai, (2013) 5 SCC 357 [LQ/SC/2013/238] : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 89), Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. V. Municipal Corpn. of Mumbai filed against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, who refused to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court not to restrain the Corporation from demolishing unauthorised and illegal constructions made on the buildings in Campa Cola Compound. Simultaneously, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 55 of 2012, (Campa Cola Residents Assn. v. State of Maharashtra filed for regularization of the unauthorized and illegal construction was also dismissed (Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. V. Municipal Corpn. of Mumbai, (2013) 5 SCC 357 [LQ/SC/2013/238] : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 89). The operative portion of that order reads as under: (SCC p. 395, paras 57-59).

57. In the result, the appeals and the transferred case are dismissed and it is declared that there is no impediment in the implementation of notices issued by the Corporation under Section 351 of the 1888 Act and order dated 3-12-2005/8-12-2005 passed by the competent authority. The Corporation is expected to take action in the matter at the earliest.

58. We also direct that the State Government and its functionaries/officers as also the officers/employees of the Corporation shall not put any hurdle or obstacle in the implementation of notices issued under Section 351 of the 1888 Act.

59. It is needless to say that the flat buyers shall be free to avail appropriate remedy against the developers/builders.

After about two months, Rajesh S. Parekh and others filed Writ Petition No. 1076 of 2013 before the High Court for issue of a direction to the Corporation not to demolish the unauthorized and illegal construction on the ground that the action taken by the Corporation was ultra vires the provision contained in Section 53(3) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the 1966 Act). The same was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 29-4-2013 (Rajesh S. Parikh v. State of Maharashtra, WP (Lodg.) No. 1076 of 2013, order dated 29-4-2013 (Bom). SLP (C). No. 17002 of 2013 filed against that order was dismissed by this Court on 2-5-2013 (Rajesh S. Parekh v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 14 SCC 565 [LQ/SC/2013/516] ). However, five months time was granted to the petitioners and other occupants of illegal portions of the buildings to vacate the same. This is evident from the following portions of order dated 2-5-2013 (Rajesh S. Parekh v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 14 SCC 565 [LQ/SC/2013/516] ) : (Rajesh S. Parekh case (Rajesh S. Parekh v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 14 SCC 565 [LQ/SC/2013/516] ), SCC p. 568, para 9)

9. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. However, keeping in view the fact that the occupants of the illegally constructed flats may not have got sufficient time to vacate the same, we allow five months time to the petitioners and other occupiers of illegal portions of the buildings to vacate the same. This would be subject to the following conditions:

9.1. Within four weeks from today they shall file affidavits in this Court and give unequivocal undertaking that at the end of five moths period all of them will voluntarily vacate the disputed portions of the buildings and will not cause any hindrance in the action which may be taken by the Corporation in the light of the observations made by this Court in judgment dated 27-2-2013 in Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. Municipal Corpn. of Mumbai (Esha Ekta Apartments Coop. Housing Society Ltd. V. Municipal Corpn. of Mumbai, (2013) 5 SCC 357 [LQ/SC/2013/238] : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 89).

9.2. During the period of five months, the petitioners and other occupiers shall not induct any other person in the disputed premises. They shall also not file litigation of any kind in the Bombay High Court or the courts subordinate to the High Court for frustrating the action already taken by the Corporation or which may be taken hereinafter.

Just before expiry of five months period, Rejesh S. Parekh and three others filed IA No. 2 of 2013 in SLP (C) No. 17002 of 2013 for issue of a direction to the Corporation to carry out demolition work as per order dated 4-6-2010 of the State Government. That application was withdrawn on 11-9-2013 (Rajesh S. Parekh v. State of Maharashtra, IA No. 2 of 2013 in SLP (C) No. 17002 of 2013, order dated 11-9-2013 (SC), wherein it was directed:

Taken on board. After making submissions for a while, Shri F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants made a request that his clients may be permitted to withdraw the application with liberty to approach the authorities concerned. The request of Shri Nariman is accepted and the application is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made.) with liberty to approach the authorities concerned. Thereafter application dated 16-9-2013 was submitted to the Executive Engineer of the Corporation for approval of the amended plans under Section 53(3) of the 1966 Act read with Section 342 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (for short the 1888 Act). The Corporation held that in view of the orders passed by this Court, the prayer made in the application cannot be entertained. Writ Petition No. 2465 of 2013 filed against the decision of the Corporation was dismissed (Campa Cola Residents Assn. v. State of Maharashtra, WP (Lodg.) No. 2465 of 2013, order dated 26-9-2013 (Bom) by the Division Bench of the High Court by observing that the application filed by the petitioners was nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.

We have heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General appearing for the Corporation and carefully perused the record.

In our considered view, the writ petition filed by the petitioners, which was one in the chain of cases filed by the petitioners and its members before the trial court, the High Court and this Court, was clearly misconceived and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the same..

From the averments contained in the special leave petition and the annexed documents it is clear that the petitioners now want to raise a dispute regarding the total area which is proposed to be demolished. This is clearly impermissible because no such plea was raised at any state of the earlier proceedings and by creating an artificial dispute the petitioners cannot frustrate implementation of the notices issued by the Corporation under Section 351 of the 1888 Act. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

At this stage, Shri Mukul Rohatgi gave out that 75% members of the house building societies have vacated the illegally constructed portions of the buildings and then made a request that the remaining members may be allowed four weeks further time to vacate the premises in their occupation. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that all the members have already filed undertakings in terms of order dated 2-5-2013 passed in Rajesh S. Parekh v. State of Maharashtra (Rajesh S. Parekh v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 14 SCC 565 [LQ/SC/2013/516] ).

Shri Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General submitted that he does not have any objection to the grant of four weeks further time to the remaining members of the house building societies provided that they do not file any further litigation in any court.

Having considered the rival submissions and keeping in view the forthcoming Dussehra and Diwali festivals, we deem it proper to accept the prayer made by Shri Rohatgi and allow time to the members of the house building societies up to 11-11-2013 to vacate the premises in their occupation. This would be subject to the condition that they shall not file any litigation in any court in the State of Maharashtra including the Bombay High Court except for recovery of the amount paid to the developers/builders. At the same time, it is clarified that this liberty shall not entitle the petitioners or anyone else to file any case and seek injunction against demolition of the case illegally constructed portions of the building.