Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and the developer (Respondent No. 4) raised preliminary objections to the petition's maintainability, arguing that a writ petition cannot be filed against a private entity for contractual disputes.

The Petitioners cited several judgments to support their claim of maintainability, including Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. vs. V. R. Rudani & Ors. and Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Cricket Association of Bihar & Ors. However, the Court distinguished these cases, stating they pertained to entities discharging public functions or receiving government financial aid, which did not apply to the private developer in this instance.

The Court also found the Petitioner's reliance on Sushila Gordhandas Parikh vs. State of Maharashtra and Praga Tools Corporation vs. C.A. Imanual & Ors. to be misplaced. The Sushila Gordhandas Parikh case involved compelling circumstances of senior citizens being deprived of rent, which were absent in the present petition. The Praga Tools Corporation principle applies to entities performing statutory functions or governed by a statutory framework, neither of which described the developer.

The Court emphasized the Supreme Court's categorical holding in Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. v/s. Rajendra Shankar Patil, which advises High Courts to refrain from entertaining disputes between private parties through Writ Petitions under Article 226.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the reliefs sought were directed against a private developer who does not fall within the ambit of "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The disputes were deemed essentially private in nature, involving contractual obligations, and thus did not warrant the exercise of the Court's writ jurisdiction.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.