1 RPL 53.11.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO. 53 OF 2011 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 140 OF 2006 Mr. Anand Ambadas Bhalerao. ... Review Petitioner. V/s. Janhit Manch & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara for the Petitioner. Ms. Geeta Joglekar for Respondent 5 - BMC. CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD & A.A. SAYED, JJ. 8 DECEMBER 2011. P.C. :- At the request of Counsel appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioner, the Petition has been taken on board. The Petition was mentioned during the course of the day on the ground that there was an urgency. 2. We have heard Counsel appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioner and Counsel appearing on behalf of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. 2 RPL 53.11.sxw 3. The order which has been sought to be reviewed has been passed on 29 July 2009 by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bilal Nazki and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.R. Joshi. The Review Petition has been placed before this Bench in pursuance of a direction of the First Court presided over by the learned Chief Justice dated 25 November 2011. The Review Petition has been filed over two years after the date of the order dated 29 July 2009. The subject matter of the order was the hazards posed to the health and security of the citizens of the city by encroachments on and surrounding pipelines which carry water supply to the city. The order dated 29 July 2009 constitutes a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the State in order to consider all aspects of the matter and to submit a detailed plan of action to the Court. The Committee was constituted in order to enable the Court to pass orders. This is evident from paragraph 5 of the order which reads as follows :- “ Therefore, to enable this Court to pass orders, which ensure safety on account of health and security of the City of Mumbai, we appoint a Committee headed by the Chief Secretary of the 3 RPL 53.11.sxw State. This Committee shall have the Director General of Police, Maharashtra, the Municipal Commissioner, Mumbai Municipal Corporation, and the Finance Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, as Members. They shall meet soon, consider all aspects of the matter, take assistance from any Department they like, which the Chief Secretary is otherwise authorised to do by virtue of his office, and submit a detailed plan of action to this Court within a period of 6 weeks. If the Committee, during its deliberations, feels it necessary to seek any clarifications from this Court, it shall be at liberty to approach the Court.” 4. The Petition, which is a P.I.L. was directed to be listed after six weeks. Having regard to the rationale set out in the order of the Court for constituting the Committee, we do not consider it necessary to exercise jurisdiction in review consistent with the parameters settled in law for the exercise of such jurisdiction. We, therefore, decline to entertain the Review Petition only on that ground. The Review Petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioner submits that in purported execution of the order passed by a 4 RPL 53.11.sxw Division Bench on 29 July 2009, certain hutments have been demolished. This subsequent development cannot form part of the Review Petition, since as we have noted earlier, the limited direction which was issued on 29 July 2009 was to constitute a Committee to submit a plan of action. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A.A. Sayed, J.)