1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUO MOTU PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 86 OF 2006 Hon'ble Shri Justice P.S. Patankar (Retd.) and Hon'ble Shri Justice M.S Rane (Retd.) ...Petitioners Versus The Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Vijay Pradhan, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Nita Solanki, amici curiae Mr. Neville Lashkari i/by M/s. Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe for Respondent No. 1 Ms. Kiran Bagalia for Mumbai Metropolitan Road Development Authority Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar for Bombay Municipal Corporation Mr. Ajay Fernandes i/by Mr. Jaganathan V. for the Applicant Mr. Narayan Pandit, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE: JUNE 25, 2008 P.C.:- This petition was filed mainly with a grievance that there were encroachments on D'Mello Road and Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, which 2 were not being removed by the respondents. Various orders were passed on various occasions, and ultimately, an order was passed on 31st January, 2008, by which the Municipal Corporation was directed to fix a date by which the removal / rehabilitation of the slum dwellers would be completed as far as D'Mello Road and Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road were concerned. This Court had directed that they should take all variables into consideration, and inform the date by which they would complete the task. 2. Thereafter, various orders were passed, and ultimately, on 26th March, 2008, the learned senior counsel for the Municipal Corporation, Mr. Singhvi, informed the Court that 'A' and 'B' Wards had been cleared of encroachments. The remaining wards, being 'E', 'F' (South) and 'F' (North) Wards, would be cleared of encroachments by the end of May, 2008; and the rehabilitation of the displaced persons would also take place. He submitted that there were 600 persons, who were likely to be displaced, and the Mumbai Metropolitan Road Development Authority (MMRDA) would offer accommodation to 400 of them immediately and 200 persons might have to wait for some time. Mr. Singhvi submitted that this order had been complied with, and all encroachments have been removed. He 3 submitted that even the accommodation has been provided to all the displaced persons. 3. The counsel appearing for the intervenor/applicant in Chamber Summons No. 162 of 2007 disputes this. But he submits that he does not represent the displaced persons who got displaced because of removal of encroachments, and these persons have already filed a separate Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No. 1367 of 2007. Therefore, this objection will be taken care of in that petition. 4. Mr.Vijay Pradhan, the learned counsel, who has been appointed amicus curiae, has written a letter dated 23rd June, 2008, which he has sent to the respondents. In this letter, he has not disputed that the order of this Court has been complied with, but he has stated that after removal of the structures, the debris is still on the road. He also has noted that at some place near Bardai Factory, few occupants have extended their structures by pucca construction on the pavements covering major portion of the pavements, which have not been removed. The same persons have been found re-erecting partially demolished structures. He has also stated that vehicles are being parked on roads blocking the major parts of the roads. 4 5. We direct the Commissioner of Police and also the Municipal Commissioner to look into the matters, which are brought to their notice by Mr. Pradhan, and see that at no point of time orders of this Court are violated, and no structures are allowed to be re-constructed. With this direction, the petition is disposed of. BILAL NAZKI, J. S.S. SHINDE, J.