- 1 - pil61.2010 rng IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 61 OF 2010 Manoranjan Santosh Roy .. Petitioner vs Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport .. Respondents Undertaking & another Mr. Sachin M.Bandekar for petitioner Mr. Sudhir K. Talsania, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Shweta Sharma i..b. M/s M.V Kini & Co for Respondent No.1 CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND GIRISH GODBOLE, J Thursday, 9th June, 2011 P.C. 1. This Petition is filed as a P. I. L. In the P.I.L. the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (a) This hon'ble Court be pleased to issue notice to Respondents to furnish details of surcharges collected by Respondent no.1 and remitted to Respondent no.2 and to furnish the details of utilisation of such funds under various heads. (b) this hon'ble court be pleased to appoint a competent person to go through the audits of surcharges collected by Respondent no.1 and remitted to Respondent no.2 and to call for reports from such appointed person to this Hon'ble court. - 2 - pil61.2010 (c) this hon'ble court be pleased to direct the Respondents to discontinue the surcharge levied by BEST on commuters of BEST buses on passenger tickets. (d) this hon'ble court be pleased to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe into the matter and to report to this Hon'ble court from appropriate action under the law. 2. In response to the petitioner's application under the R.T.I. Act, 2005 respondent no.1 Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) gave the following reply being Exhibit A-1 to the petition on 2nd March, 2009 : The levying of surcharge on passenger tickets was started for providing relief to Bangladesh Refugees under head “Bangladesh Refugee Relief Surcharge ” from December 1971 to March 1973. Later on the same is continued under various heads viz. “Scarcity Relief Surcharge from 1.4.1973, Children Nutrition Surcharge from 1/7/1974 and Nutrition Surcharge from 1/4/1975 till today. The Undertaking collects Nutrition Surcharge on behalf of Government of Maharashtra. The amount collected as Nutrition Surcharge is remitted to the office of Transport Commissioner every month. However, the details of Surcharge amount utilised by the Government and how long it will be collected is not available with the Undertaking. 3. In view of the above reply we do not think that the petitioner has made out any case for granting the reliefs as prayed for because learned counsel for B.E.S.T. has stated that the amount of surcharge is being paid over by B.E.S.T. to the state government and that the - 3 - pil61.2010 B.E.S.T. cannot be expected to give any reply as to how the amount is spent by the state government. 4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly when B.E.S.T. is only a collecting agency and surcharge is levied for the purpose as indicated in the above reply, the respondents cannot be directed to discontinue the surcharge levied by B.E.S.T. on commuters of B.E.S.T. buses on passenger tickets. P.I.L. is, therefore, dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE GIRISH GODBOLE, J