VIJENDRA KUMAR RAI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Note has been tendered by the learned Amicus Curiae, which is taken on record. A copy of the said Note has also been handed over to the learned Counsel representing Respondent Nos. 9 to 16 in Public Interest Litigation No.109 of 2019 as also learned Counsel representing the Respondent- Slum Rehabilitation Authority.

(2.) The learned Amicus Curiae has stated that the data and the information contained in her Note submitted today have been mostly extracted from the Affidavits filed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and the Developers.

(3.) According to the said Note, at least at seven places the work has been ordered to be stopped in respect of the saleable components of the schemes. The Petitioner, who appears in person, has however raised an apprehension that despite the stoppage order having been passed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the work on the spot has actually not been stopped.