1 PIL145.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.145 OF 2010 Mr.Kariappa Marriappa Gunthe : Petitioner V/s. The Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar i/b. Nitesh Bhutekar for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Pethe for respondent no.1. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.2 & 3. ... CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : MARCH 22, 2011. P.C.: By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution purporting to be a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has challenged the Resolution/Agreement dated 19.1.1990 between the respondent no.1 Pune Municipal Corporation and the respondent nos.4 to 6. The land admeasuring 382.38 sq. mtrs. was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1985. Subsequently, however, Pune Municipal Corporation passed a resolution dated 11.8.1989 for releasing the land in 2 PIL145.10 favour of the original owners and the Corporation was to get only 200 sq. ft. of built up area of the constructed area out of the building to be put up by the respondent nos.4 to 6. 2. The contention in the present petition is that the respondent- Corporation could not have done so and the agreement was entered into contrary to public interest. 3. The learned counsel for Pune Municipal Corporation states that the petition suffers from gross delay and laches. It is stated that after the land was released, the respondent nos.4 to 6 put up a construction on the land in question and the Completion Certificate was granted on 4.3.1994 and that out of the constructed area, 200 sq. ft. area was handed over to the respondent-Corporation. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, as the petitioner did not take any action even after the construction was completed as far back as in 1994, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. We may not put our seal of approval on the impugned resolution of the Corporation and the agreement entered into between the Corporation and the respondent nos.4 to 6, but as the fact remains that in view of the delay of 3 PIL145.10 16 years, this would not be a fit case for entertaining this Public Interest Litigation. On this short ground alone, the PIL is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE D.G. KARNIK, J.