1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5388 OF 2007 Appasaheb Sidramappa Hatture .. Petitioner. Versus The Chief Auditor, Solapur Municipal Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.S.G. Kudle for the petitioner. Mr.V.P. Malvankar, G.P. for respondent No.4. Mr.V.B. Naik for respondents No.1 to 3. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 14th February, 2008 DATED : 14th February, 2008 DATED : 14th February, 2008 P.C. : 1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Prayer made in this petition is to the effect that respondents No.1 and 2 which is Solapur Municipal Corporation and its Officers be directed to comply with the provisions of Section 105 and 106 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. 2. Counsel appearing for the Corporation at the very outset stated that they are in substance and spirit complying with the provisions of the Act. According to him, the Corporation had passed resolution. In furtherance to this resolution and in exercise of its powers under clause (e) of 2 sub-section 2 and sub-section 4 of Section 465 of the said Act, Audit procedure regulations were framed by the Standing Committee vide resolution dated 7-5-1965 and these rules have been scrupulously followed from that date till today. It is further stated that the Corporation is even doing pre-audit of bills in terms of clause 3(2) of said resolution. 3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to resolution No.185, wherein the Chief Accountant is required to maintain functioning of the accounts on weekly basis and to the due check thereof. This resolution was passed on 8-6-2007. However, according to the learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, resolution dated 8-6-2007 does not add any new dimensions but only reactivate Section 105 and 106, which they are implementing in terms of regulations framed on 7-5-1965. 4. In the above circumstances, there is hardly any occasion for this Court to interfere and in any case by means of Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner, addmittedly is a member of standing committee and is at liberty to raise this issue in the house or otherwise in accordance with law and we do hope that the Corporation would ensure that statutory provisions are complied with and the 3 matter is examined. 5. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE J.P. DEVADHAR, J.