1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO. 4 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7500 OF 2007 The Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation. .. Petitioner. (Orig. Respondent No.1) vs. Anjuman Khairul-Islam Trust & Ors. .. Respondents. Respondent No.1. (Orig. Petitioner) Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr. Adv., i/by A.A. Garge for review petitioner. Mr. S.G. Kudle for Respondent No. 1. Smt. Sunanda R. Kumbhat for Respondent No. 2. Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP., for Respondent / State. CORAM : J.N. PATEL & S. J. KATHAWALA, JJ. DATE : 3RD JULY, 2009. (IN CHAMBER AT 2.45 P.M.) 2 P.C. : By consent of the parties the review petition is taken up for hearing. 2. This review petition has been filed by The Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Sector 11, C.B.D. Belapur, Navi Mumbai. It is the case of the petitioner that the order under review requires reconsideration on various grounds. Firstly, that CIDCO did not contest the matter and secondly the letter dated 8.5.2007 on which this Court has placed reliance wherein the In-charge Manager (Town Services) of CIDCO addressed a letter to the Executive Engineer (Morbe / Planning) Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, Navi Mumbai which has the word “may” and not “shall”. Thirdly, the Court while passing the order did not take into consideration the compilation of documents tendered by the NMMC which relates to correspondence between CIDCO and the review petitioner i.e. NMMC regarding availability of alternative plot for burial ground. Fourthly, plot nos. 112, 113-A and 113-B Sector 14, Kopar Khairane, have been allotted by CIDCO to NMMC and these plots are not allotted to any trust, institution or individuals and further that the subject plots have never been allotted to the respondent Trust (original petitioner) and, therefore, in the absence of all these deficiencies, the Court should review its order whereby the Court directed the review petitioner as well as CIDCO to hand over Plot Nos. 3 112, 113-A and 113-B forthwith after completing the formalities in favour of the respondent trust (original petitioner) by placing reliance on the communication dated 8.7.2008 addressed to the Municipal Commissioner, NMMC, Navi Mumbai by authorised signatory of Anjuman-E-Fakhri. 3. This order has been passed by quashing and setting aside the impugned notice inviting tenders for allocation of these plots for the purpose of burial ground grond. 4. Further grounds are raised that it is the general practice and policy of the Corporation to dispose of all the plots and shops by inviting applications through public advertisement in the newspapers. The policy is adopted by the Corporation from CIDCO itself and, therefore, it will not be proper to allot the plot to the respondent trust (original petitioner). By way of amendment, additional ground is taken that the petitioner corporation had passed resolution no. 371 in the General Body Meeting held in the month of August 2008 thereby authorising the Municipal Commissioner to take various steps for implementation of the free funeral rites (voluntary scheme) and, therefore, the petitioner Corporation by passing the above resolution has implemented the scheme of free funeral rites (voluntary) as per resolution no. 371 which has been annexed as Exhibit “C” and that the same has now been made availale to all religions by resolution no. 531 passed by the General Body of the review petitioner in a meeting held 4 on 17.12.2008 which is annexed as Exhibit “D”. Further it is contended that since there are three other burial grounds available in Navi Mumbai area and the proposal is pending before CIDCO for allotting alternate plot, it is not necessary to hand over the plot in question to the respondent trust for burial ground. 5. In reply to the review petition it is the case of the respondent trust (original petitioner) that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and this Court has disposed of the petition after hearing the parties and relying upon the correspondence annexed to the petition. It is submitted that if the petition was not contested by CIDCO that cannot be a ground for review and further that now the review petitioners who were the respondents cannot seek review on the ground of subsequent development in the matter of policy decision which decision has been taken after the petition came to be disposed of as it can only operate prospectively. 6. The learned counsel appearing for CIDCO has drawn our attention to the fact that the letter dated 8.5.2007 clearly states that “Thereafter, you may hand over these plots to the Anjuman Khairul Islam Trust and Anjuman – E Fakhari (Dawoodi Bohra) immediately.” whereas in the order under review in paragraph 8 it has been stated “as the plot belongs to CIDCO and has been allotted to the petitioner – Trust as well as Anjuman-E-Fakhari, the Municipal Corporation is only required to process the same and hand over the plot earmarked for 5 burial grounds to these two Trusts. (emphasised by the learned counsel for CIDCO). 7. In so far as the review petitioner is concerned, we do not find that it has made out any case so as to review our order dated 17.11.2008. We dispose of Review Petition No. 4 of 2009 as the contentions raised by the rview petitioner do not make out a ground for review. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent trust (original petitioner) the subsequent policy decision taken by the review petitioner would not apply to the facts of the case. Further, in so far as the availability of alternative plot for the use of burial ground is concerned, it was not in issue before this Court while dealing with the matter. In so far as the learned counsel for CIDCO having pointed out to us that CIDCO in its letter has used the word “may” and not “shall” also do not make any difference for the simple reason that if the letter is read as a whole it clearly indicates a commitment on the part of CIDCO to allot the plot in favour of the respondent trust (original petitioner) as the letter has to be read as a whole which would clearly indicate that the word “may” used in the letter was directory as the sentence ends with the word “immediately”. Therefore, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. The review petition is dismissed. (J.N. PATEL, J.) (S.J. KATHAWALA, J.)