IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 101 OF 2009 Fateh Mohammed Raja Mansoor ..Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Mr. Anil R. Mishra for Petitioners. Mr.A.B. Ketkar,AGP for Respondent No.1. Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Sr. Counsel with Mrs. Shobha Ajitkumar for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : 31ST MARCH, 2010. P.C. 1 The petitioner, who happens to be a Vice President of Republican Party of India, North Mumbai District has filed the present petition challenging the action of respondent No.1 in constructing a toilet block as a public amenity for a residents residing in that area. We are concerned with CTS 515, 517 and 518. It appears that initially all these plots were belonging to the Corporation. There was a existing toilet on CTS No.515 on the ground floor and it was in dilapidated condition it was decided to reconstruct. While preparing the plan it appears that the area was wrongly shown as CTS No. 518. However, from the affidavit of respondents it is clear that the said construction is coming up on CTS No. 517 which is also a plot belonging to the Corporation. The construction was proposed to be constructed of ground plus first floor. From the affidavit of Shri Suresh M. Jejurkar, Chief Engineer, MSDP, it appears that there were oral complaints from the adjoining Masjid authorities that the first floor toilet block may affect the adjacent masjid prayers. Considering that the respondents asked the contractors who was engaged in the work to modify the work order by letter dated 9-9-2009 requesting not to complete the first floor toilet block and to construct only ground floor toilet block. In other words, as on today in so far as structure is concerned, toilet block is only put on the ground floor. 2 The contentions of the petitioner is that the construction of the toilet block will cause hazardous situation to the Namaji. The toilet facility are for the residents of the area and the users will be the local residents. Already toilet block exists on CTS 515, 3 The second contention raised was that the construction was given without inviting the tenders. It is explained on behalf of the Corporation that the work is done in house and as such the question of inviting tenders did not arise. 4 In our opinion, the petitioner, who are office bearers of a political party has approached this Court. The Masjid Authorities themselves have not approached this Court nor they had put their contentions before this Court. The construction is going on and in any way interference with the construction is not warranted. Considering the above, in our opinion, this is not a fit case to exercise PIL jurisdiction. Consequently, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (F.I. REBELLO J.) Sd/- ( A. A. SAYED, J.)