gopi 1 pil-lodg-23-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION LODGING NO.23 OF 2011 Pradeep Shivgonvind Rai & Anr. ..Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Shailesh Shah, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mamta Sadh i/b. Joseph Fernandes for the petitioners. Ms.Uma Palsule Desai, AGP for respondent Nos.1,5 and 6 Ms. Geeta Joglekar for respondent BMC Mr. Sanjiv A. Sawant with Mr. Sachin Kadam for respondent No.7. CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J., & MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 18 November 2011. P.C. In this petition, purporting to be Public Interest Litigation, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 7 February 2011 of the Director (E.S. & P.) of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in respect of the road adjoining the plot of land admeasuring 693.17 sq.mts., belonging to respondent no.7 Pushkraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. The petitioners claim to be spirited citizens and have contended that the public street which was passing through the land in question has been closed down (B to D) and alternative land (B to C) is gopi 2 pil-lodg-23-11 narrower than the road which is closed down. In view of the controversy about the width of the alternative road (B to C) at the hearing yesterday, we had called upon the Municipal Corporation to place on record the map showing the width of the entire road from Points A to B and alternative road from points B to C. 2. Ms. Joglekar, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation has placed on record the sketch prepared by the office of the Assistant Commissioner, P-North Ward office of the Municipal Corporation indicating that the width of the road from points A to B keeps on changing but on an average it is about 24 ft. and that the width of the road between the points B and C is about 19 ft. to 20 ft. 3. It is thus clear that the statement in the impugned order that Pimparipada road now has connectivity from passage B to C which is 20 ft. in width and it is also paved is borne out by the authenticated sketch submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation. In other words since the residents in the area have been provided with an alternative road of the width of about 20 ft., we see no merit in this petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.7 submits that respondent no.7 society and its members who are retired government servants have been harassed by the petitioners and others at the instance of another builder and that in the past also one PIL was filed being PIL No.91 of 2009 which came to be dismissed by order dated 8 April 2010. 5. Since PIL No.91 of 2009 was filed by Pimpripada Raswhta Bachao Kriti Samiti (PROP) and the same was dismissed after recording gopi 3 pil-lodg-23-11 the statement made on behalf of the respondent society that the construction is not to be put up on a public street, we do not propose to express any opinion. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioners are not the residents of the area, we are not inclined to give any finding in favour of the petitioners that this petition purporting to be PIL petition is a bonafide petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed with these observations. (CHIEF JUSTICE) (MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)