rng IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION P.I.L.NO.91 P.I.L.NO.91 P.I.L.NO.91 OF 2007 OF 2007 OF 2007 Manmohan P.Khanvilkar .. Petitioner Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & 4 ors .. Respondents Mr.Kunal Cheema for Petitioner Mr.K.K.Singhvi, Sr.Advocate a/w Ms.Shobha Ajeet Kumar for Respondent no.1 Mr.Milind More, AGP for Respondent no.3 Mr.A.C.Singh i/b Mr.D.R.Shah for Respondent no.4 CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : J.N.PATEL J.N.PATEL J.N.PATEL AND AND AND SMT SMT SMT V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATED DATED DATED : : : 11th 11th 11th February, 2009 February, 2009 February, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Mr.Singhvi, learned counsel for the BMC states that the issue is covered by the judgment dated 5th May 2004 in Writ Petition No. 379 of 2003 (Dr.Rajendra (Dr.Rajendra (Dr.Rajendra Thacker vs MCGB & ors reported in Thacker vs MCGB & ors reported in Thacker vs MCGB & ors reported in 2004 2004 2004 (4) BCR page 1 (H.L.Gokhale and R.S.Mohite, (4) BCR page 1 (H.L.Gokhale and R.S.Mohite, (4) BCR page 1 (H.L.Gokhale and R.S.Mohite, JJ) JJ) JJ) 2. As the issue is covered, we are not inclined to entertain this PIL. Petition is disposed of accordingly. { Smt V.K.Tahilramani, J } Smt V.K.Tahilramani, J } Smt V.K.Tahilramani, J } { J.N.Patel, J } J.N.Patel, J } J.N.Patel, J }