A.A. Cazi, J.
1. This is in respect of property situated at 97, Walkeshwar Road, Bombay 400 006. The three petitioners are tenants in different portions of the buildings. Respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8 are the landlords owners. Undisputedly the buildings are in a dilapidated condition since 1970. History prior to 11th April, 1986 need not be referred to for the purpose of understanding the dispute in question. On 11th April, 1986 the tenants applied to the third respondents (Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board) for action under Chapter VIIIA of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. Under the provisions of the chapter, a co-operative Society formed or proposed to be formed by not less than 70% of the occupiers in a cess building, may request the Board to move the State Government to acquire the land together with the existing building thereon and then to acquire right or interest of the owner for reconstruction of a new building in lieu of the old one at their own costs. The third respondents, submitted the tenants' proposal to respondent No. 1 (State of Maharashtra). On 28th August, 1986 respondent No. 1 passed a resolution approving the tenants' proposal. On 29th April, 1987 respondent No. 3 granted N.O.C. to the tenants to form a Society. On 14th November, 1987 the landlords filed Writ Petition No. 3127 of 1987 challenging the action taken by the third respondents under the said Chapter VIIIA an obtained and ad-interim stay. On 6th December, 1990 the landlords applied to respondent No. 1 to cancel the tenants' scheme and to grant N.O.C. to the landlords for redevelopment. On 15th January, 1991 the landlords applied to respondent No. 3 for grant of N.O.C. for redevelopment of the property. On 16th February, 1991 respondent No. 1 passed a resolution cancelling the resolution dated 28th August, 1986. On 12th July, 1991 respondent No. 3 granted N.O.C. to the landlords to redevelop the property. The tenants then filed Writ Petition No. 2569 of 1991 for quashing the Government Resolution dated 16th February, 1991. On 16th September, 1991 this court (Ashok Agarwal, J.) passed the following order:
'P.C:- Rule.
By consent Rule made returnable forthwith.
It is not disputed that the decision dated 18-4-1991 at Exhibit H the Resolution dated 16-2-1991 at Exhibit K are taken without affording the petitioners and other occupiers a hearing. Hence the same are quashed with liberty to respondents No. 1 to 3, to arrive at a decision afresh hearing all the interested parties.
'Rule absolute in the above terms.
No order as to costs.
Certified copy to be expedited.'
The matter was then heard by respondent No. 2 (Shri R.S. Rathod, Deputy Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Housing and Special Assistance Department), and on 27th November, 1991, he (respondent No. 2) passed an order as follows:
'The Government Resolution No. ARS 1486/8512/D.II. dated 28-8-86 has been cancelled by subsequent government Resolution No. ARS 1486/8512/D.II, dated 16th February, 1991, and the said cancellation of Govt. Resolution is hereby confirmed. Therefore, the contents of Govt. Resolution dated 16-2-1991 are also hereby confirmed. (vide Ex.'R' from Writ Petition No. 2569/91).
2. The contents of letter No. EE/Cell/D/256 of 1991 dated 18-4-91 (vide Exh.'H' from the W.P. No. 2569/91) are also hereby confirmed.
3. It shall be incumbent on the part of the said owners to strictly adhere to and abide by all the conditions prescribed by the Bombay Housing & Area Development Board in its 'No Objection Certificate' No. R/NOC/F-473/14150/BBE, dated 12th July, 1991.
4. The tenants/occupants of the building have paid Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) towards initial deposit of 30% of the estimated compensation of the land and building thereon. The Bombay Board shall return this amount to the said depositors.'
It is against this order dated 27th November, 1991 that the present writ petition has been filed.
5. Except for one legal point the impugned judgment and order dated 27th November 1991 has been attacked on questions of facts. This court will not in writ petition interfere into those questions of facts.
6. As regards the sole legal question-it is this. The Government having passed a Resolution dated 28th August, 1986, could it cancel the same by subsequent order dated 16th February, 1991? It must be noted that the same authority which passed the resolution dated 28th August, 1986, has passed the cancellation order dated 16th February, 1991. The provision of section 21 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1897, makes it clear that such a power exists. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in this writ petition.
7. It should however be pointed out that all the parties which proceeded before the authority charged with the task of deciding the matter after this
High Court's order dated 16th September, 1991, proceeded on the footing that the authority had the power to cancel the resolution dated 28th August, 1986 and in fact one of the submissions which were made on behalf of tenants was that the landlords should have first withdrawn their Writ Petition No. 3127 of 1987.
8. In the result, the writ petition is summarily rejected.
Mr. Shah prays for continuation of the ad-interim order. Mr. Divan objects. Mr. Shah's prayer is rejected.
Issue of certified copy is expedited.