1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (LODG) NO.2 OF 2008 Sanjay Eknath Pukle & Anr. .....Petitioners. V/s Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents. ------ Mr. Ramesh Patil i/b Ajay Nisar & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. G. Hariharan with Mr. Kiran Kandpile i/b Dr. T.C. Kaushik for respondent No.1 - Union of India. Mr. R.M. Kadam alongwith Mr. M.H. Doshi for respondent No.2. Mr. C.U. Singh i/b Mr. P.K. Shroff & Co. for respondent No.4. Mr. S.C. Naidu i/b Mr. C.R. Naidu & Co. for respondent No.3. ALONGWITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.91 OF 2008 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (LODG) NO.2 OF 2008 Sanjay Eknath Pukle & Anr. ...... Petitioners. V/s Union of India & Ors. ....... Respondents. And Vasant Mahadeo Pisal & Ors. ........Proposed Respondents 2 ----- Mr. Deven Chogale i/b Deven Chogle & Co. for the applicant in Chamber Summons No.91 of 2008. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V. M. KANADE, J. Order reserved on 24th April, 2008 Order delivered on 2nd May, 2008. P.C. 1. Petitioners have filed this Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and are seeking the following reliefs:- "a. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records & proceedings of the MOU dated 06/11/2007 entered into between the Respondent No.1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 pursuant to the Preliminary Information Memorandum, March 2007 & Request for Proposal, September 2007 & after perusing the same MOU dtd. 06/11/2007 may be quashed & set aside. b. That this Hon'ble Court may be 3 pleased to restrain the Respondent No.1 & 2 to proceed further in the Joint Venture Schemes introduced pursuant to the Preliminary Information Memorandum, March 2007 & Request for Proposal, September 2007. c. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondent No.1 & 2 to proceed further in MVRS scheme for which notice dtd. 31/12/2007 has been issued by the respondent No.2. d. Pending the hearing & final disposal of the present petition the Respondents may be restrained from implementing the MOU dtd. 06/11/2007 entered into between the Respondent No.1, 2, 4, 5, & 6 pursuant to the Preliminary Information Memorandum, March 2007 & Request for Proposal, September 2007. e. Pending the hearing & final disposal of the present petition the Respondents may be restrained from implementing the Joint Venture Schemes introduced pursuant to the Preliminary Information Memorandum, March 2007 & Request for 4 Proposal, September 2007. f. Pending the hearing & final disposal of the present petition the Respondents may be restrained from implementing MVRS scheme for which notice dtd. 31/12/2007 has been issued by the respondent No.2. g. Ad-interim & interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d), (e) & (f) above. h. Cost of the Petition. i. Any other appropriate relief." 2. Petitioner No.1 claims to be a social and political worker and Petitioner No.2 was an employee of Respondent No.2. Pursuant to the orders passed by the BIFR, a MOU was executed between Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6. It is an admitted position that the Petitioners are parties to the BIFR proceedings. If the Petitioners are aggrieved by the directions which are given by the BIFR, it is open for them to make an application for review or modification of the order passed by the BIFR. The P.I.L. filed by the Petitioners, therefore, is misconceived and it is disposed of accordingly. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioners to take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum. 5 3. Since the P.I.L. itself is disposed of, Chamber Summons No.91 of 2008 taken out in this P.I.L. does not survive and the same is also disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.