1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 1410 OF 2005 Vasant Waman Pradhan & Ors. ..... ..... Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors.... ...... ..... Respondents. Mr. Mannadiar i/by M/s. Mannadiar & Co., for the Petitioners. Mr. G. W. Mottow, AGP for Respondent Nos.1,2 and 4. Mr. K.K.Singhvi, Sr. Counsel with Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar for Respondent No.3. Mr. D. J. Khambatta, Sr. Counsel, with Mr. A. C. Shahi/by Mr. A. S. Dayal for Respondent No.5. Mr. R. A.Dada, Sr. Counsel with Mr. B. Shroff i/by M/s. Tejpal & Co., for Respondent No.6. Ms. Leena Mirashi with Ms. Snehal Paranjape i/by M/s. Shah & Sanghvi for Respondent No.7. Mr. Vivek Menon i/by M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates for Intervener. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and S. S. SHINDE, JJ. DATED : 25TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.: The Petitioners seek leave to amend the writ petition and want to add para 32-A after para 32 and also a prayer to the effect that the Notification dated 24th November, 2006 be set aside. We have seen the notification, which has been filed along with the counter affidavit by respondent No.1. This notification is dated 24th November, 2006 and it extended certain concessions 2 to Western India Football Association, the user of Cooperage Ground, like allowing it to use for organising certain non-sport activities such as marriage functions, etc. But this order was passed for one year from the date of passing of the order on an experimental basis. Since the order has been passed on 24th November, 2006 it has lived its life and therefore no longer is in existence. 2. Therefore, no amendment to the petition or the addition of prayer as prayed for is needed. Accordingly, the application for amendment is rejected. 3. This petition is pending in this Court for a number of years and various orders have been passed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the main grievance, which remains, is that the user of hall and premises (1) Western India Football Association at Cooperage Ground; (2) Princess Victoria Mary Gymkhana at Plot Nos.10 and 11 of the Queens Barracs Area, Maharshi Karve Road and (3) Colaba Mahila Vikas Mandal at Plot No.1, Queens Barracks Area, Gen. J. Bhosale Marg, should be directed not to create any noise pollution. In this connection an order was passed by this Court on 19th July, 2006 and the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Counsel for the respondents have no objection if the order passed on 19th July, 2006 is made final order and the petition is disposed of in terms of the said order. 3 4. Therefore, we direct that the directions given in paragraph 7 of the order of this Court dated 19th July, 2006 shall be strictly complied with and in case of violation of this order the Pollution Control Board and the concerned Police Authority may be approached, who shall take immediate action in terms of the Pollution Control Laws and also in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Forum, Prevention of Environmental & Sound Pollution v/s Union of India and anr. 5. It is made clear that the Management of these three organisations along with the user shall be responsible for any violation of law, even if the pollution is made by the persons who are allowed to use the premises by the Management. Therefore, the Management should ensure once they allow the hire facilities to any party, they should ensure that the user does not violate any law. 6. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 7. However, it is made clear that the issues raised in the Writ Petition No. 133 of 2006 are not covered by this order and the said writ petition shall be taken up separately. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (S. S. SHINDE, J.)