mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PIL PETITION NO. 60 OF 2009 Ganesh Vitthal Nakhate .Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A.V. Anturkar with Mr. V.S. Talkute, for the petitioner. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mrs. S. Ajit Kumar for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate for respondent No.3. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 14TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and also perused the reply filed on behalf of the Corporation. From the affidavit it is clear that the premises belongs to one Dr. Madhavrao D. Pednekar, who happens to be the father in law of Respondent No.3. It is that Dr. Pednekar who had submitted the application for repair permission and that permission was granted in terms as set out in the permission. 2. Learned Counsel sought to bring to our attention to show that though the first floor has been demolished on the ground floor there were additions and they have not been removed. We find from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation that the permission has been granted subject to Dr. Pednekar removing the additional area also on the ground floor and restoring it to the original size of 12’.9” x 12’.3”. 3. Apart from that we find that in respect of the subject matter there is an Election Petition filed against respondent No.3. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that this cannot be treated as PIL Petition and even otherwise there is no merit in this petition. Petition accordingly dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA, J.) (F,I. REBELLO,J.)