1 srk pil-110-09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.110 OF 2009 Bhrastachar Nirmoolan Sanghtana, Mumbai and another. ... Petitioners Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others. ... Respondents Mr.U.P. Warunjikar for the petitioners. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Ms. V.S. Gharpure for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.H. Mehta and Mr. Sanjay Jain i/by M/s. P.M. & Mithi for respondent No. 3. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. Thursday, December 16, 2010 P .C. This petition purporting to be PIL is filed by petitioner No.1 trust and petitioner No.2 Manav Shankar Joshi claiming to be President of petitioner No.1 trust. The petitioners have challenged the building permissions granted by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai in favour of respondent No.3 M/s. Manas Properties Pvt.Ltd. in respect of the construction on the land bearing City Survey No.997/B/C Final Plot No.98 IPC 11 at Santacruz. 2 srk pil-110-09.sxw 2. There is a two-fold opposition to this petition. In the first place, it is stated that petitioner No.2 Manav Shankar Joshi is not the President or Chairman of petitioner No.1 trust and that Mr. Atmaram Uttam Pakhre is the President of the Trust and Mr. Nissar, Joint Secretary of the trust. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel for the Municipal Corporation raised the second challenge regarding the credentials of petitioner No.2. He has pointed out that the petitions filed by the same organisation alongwith petitioner No.2 being PIL No.87 of 2009 and PIL No.3 of 2006 have been dismissed by this Court by judgments dated 13th January, 2010 and 6th October, 2010 respectively. In fact, in the judgment dated 13th January, 2010 in PIL No.87 of 2009, another Division Bench of this Court had, while dismissing the petition, imposed exemplary cost of Rs.10 lakhs to be paid to each of the respondents i.e. a total cost of Rs.40 lakhs was imposed on the petitioners. When the said judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, by an order dated 19th February, 2010, the order of cost was modified by requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the High Court Legal Aid Committee. The Apex Court did not interfere with the judgment of the High Court on merits. Similarly, while dismissing PIL No.3 of 2006 filed by the same petitioners, this Court dismissed the writ petition after noticing that the petitioner No.2 was removed from the trust on the ground of corruption and that the Municipal Corporation had filed affidavit stating that they were not guilty of violation of Development Control Regulations, 1991, the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1956. The Court, however, did not go into the merits of the controversy. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the present case also, we are of the view that since the credentials of petitioner No.2 are under serious doubt 3 srk pil-110-09.sxw and the Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai has filed affidavit dated 8th July, 2010 (denying the allegations made in the petition about the alleged illegalities or irregularities in the construction being carried out by respondent No.3), to which there is no affidavit in rejoinder, we are not inclined to interfere with this petition purporting to be a PIL. Writ petition is summarily dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.