1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 260 OF 2009 Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur ).. Petitioner versus Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and another ).. Respondents Petitioner present in person. Mr. A.A. Garge for Respondent No.1. Mr. R.P. Behere, Additional Government Pleader, for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. AND S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 22ND APRIL 2010 P.C. In this Public Interest Litigation, the Petitioner, who appears in person, has submitted that Regulation 44 of Development Control Regulations of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Regulations”) requires modification. It has been submitted that Regulation 44 provides for parking space and that provision requires modification for the reason that number of vehicles in the city of Navi Mumbai are increasing and, therefore, there should be suitable increase in space for parking vehicles and after considering the increase, appropriate modification should be made in the said Regulations. 2 2. It has been further submitted that Respondent No.2 is not having proper data for making amendments in Regulation 44 and, therefore, Respondent No.2 should collect data with regard to number of vehicles and number of persons residing in the city of Navi Mumbai so that Regulation 44 of the said Regulations can be suitably amended. 3. Mr.Behere, the learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for Respondent No.2 has submitted that the Government is now collecting data and after collection of the data, suitable amendments shall be made in Regulation 44 of the said Regulations. Even, Mr. Garge, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1 Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, has submitted that the relevant data has been forwarded to Respondent No.2 so that proper amendment can be made in Regulation 44. 4. Looking to the fact that there is increase in vehicles in Navi Mumbai, in our opinion, Regulation 44 requires amendment. 5. We are sure that the data which might be furnished by Respondent No.1 shall be considered by Respondent No.2 while amending Regulation 44. Moreover, the details given in the present Petition shall also be considered by Respondent No.2 while making suitable amendment in Regulation 44. A copy of the Petition shall be forwarded to Respondent No.2 so that Respondent No.2 can look into the contents of the Petition while finalizing amendment of Regulation 44 of the said Regulations. 3 6. We are sure that necessary amendment shall be made in Regulation 44 of the said Regulations by Respondent No.2 before 30th September 2010. 7. In view of the above directions, the Petition stands disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.