1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2615 OF 2007 Mohammad Latif s/o Mohammad Ahmedali Maniyar, Age 55 years, Occupation Business, R/o Hatte Nagar Road No.3, District Latur .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra through Town Planning Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Latur 3. The District Collector, Latur, District Latur 4. The Assistant Charity Commissioner, Latur, District Latur 5. The Secretary, Jeevan Vikas Pratishthan, Latur, District Latur .. RESPONDENTS Shri A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for petitioner Shri N.B.Khandare, Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3 Shri V.B.Anjanwatikar, Advocate holding for Shri V.D.Hon, Advocate for respondent No.2 Shri P.S.Dighe, Advocate holding for Shri R.N.Dhorde, Advocate for respondent No.5 Respondent No.4 served, absent. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 1st September 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed in the public interest with the following prayers : (B) By writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, the enquiry committee be appointed for the purpose of enquiring whether the construction was raised over the property prior to obtaining permission or not and subsequently, taking appropriate legal action; (C) The respondent No.4 may please be directed to initiate appropriate proceedings against the respondent no.5 Trust as per the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act; (D) The Respondent No.5 may please be restrained from utilizing the property for any other purpose than the educational purpose. 3. Shri Bhandari states that though several reliefs have been sought for by the petitioner in this petition, the petitioner is primarily concerned with the fact that the respondent No.5 may 3 not construct the rehabilitation center on the second floor of the shopping complex and the income from the transfer of the shops on the first floor may not be utilized by respondent No.5 for the rehabilitation center. The 5th respondent has accordingly filed affidavit before us. In the affidavit-in-reply, the respondent No.5 – Trust states that the rehabilitation center would be housed on the second floor and the income derived from the sale of the shops on the ground and the first floor would be utilized for running the rehabilitation center by the respondent No.5. 4. In the light of the aforesaid statement which is made on affidavit and which is in the form of an undertaking to the Court, according to us the relief which the petitioner has sought for in this petition stands fully granted. 5. We, therefore, make Rule absolute in terms of the undertaking given by the respondent No.5. The petitioner is not entitled for the other reliefs for which the petitioner has prayed for vide prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D). Apart from that the respondents have objected to the maintainability of the present writ petition for the reliefs as also the maintainability of this petition as a public interest litigation. 4 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE vvr/wp2615.07 5