-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.45 OF 2007 Shivaji Shankar Jadhav & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents ... WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.426 OF 2007 In PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.45 OF 2007 Shivaji Shankar Jadhav & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents And Sahyog-II Co-op. Housing Society (Proposed): Applicant ... WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1 OF 2008 In PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.45 OF 2007 Shivaji Shankar Jadhav & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents And -: 2 :- Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagar, Grihanirman Sanstha Maryadit (Niyojit) : Applicant ... Mr.Rajiv Kumar with Mr.N.N.Vaishnawa for the petitioners. Mr.Ravi Kadam, Advocate General, with Mr.Milind More for respondent nos.1, 3, 6, 7 & 8. Mrs.Kiran Bhagalia for respondent no.5 (MMRDA). Mr.V.B.Bhardwaj for the applicants in Chamber Summons Nos.426/2007 & 1/2008. Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Bipin Joshi for respondent no.9 in Chamber Summons no.426/2007. ... CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & S.A.BOBDE,JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 20, 2008. P.C. 1. One of the petitioners, Shivaji Shankar Jadhav, is present in Court. In response to our order dated 13.2.2008, Yogeshkumar Ramshankar Bajpai has filed an affidavit in which he has stated that whatever he has stated about the Notification with respect to the declaration of the slum area in his notice was based on the records submitted to him by the police. Eventually, after inquiry, he found that no case was made out under section 107 of the Cr.P.C. and he had closed the matter and, as a matter of fact, there is no Notification issued. On the last occasion, the learned Advocate General had -: 3 :- also submitted before this Court that no scheme for rehabilitation has so far been approved and, therefore, any challenge to the legality of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme in plot bearing C.S. no.658 of Colaba Division is premature. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show us that there is any approved scheme for rehabilitation. Therefore, the Public Interest Litigation is premature. The learned counsel further submits that in one of the affidavits, the respondents have stated that the proposal had been presented by the respondent no.9 which has not been accepted by the Government and, therefore, we should direct that no proposal from the respondent no.9 should be accepted. We are afraid that we cannot do that. If any proposal is pending before the concerned authorities, it is for the concerned authorities to accept the proposal or reject the proposal for valid reasons. If any proposal is accepted and if anybody is aggrieved, he is at liberty to take recourse to law. In this case, we suspected that the petitioners are not the real persons who want some relief from this Court. Therefore, we asked certain questions to one of the petitioners, viz., Shivaji Shankar Jadhav, who is present in Court. During his statement, he has stated that his income is between Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- per month. -: 4 :- When further questioned, he stated that the money was provided to him by a Sanstha of which he is a member. At one stage, he stated that the Court should not look into it and he has collected the amount by begging. He has also annexed a receipt with the Public Interest Litigation showing that he has paid a sum of Rs.33,000/- on account of fee for getting certain documents under the Right to Information Act. We do not believe that the petitioner no.1, whose income is between Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- per month, could spend an amount of Rs.33,000/- for getting copies of documents. In addition, he must have spent some more money to file this case. Therefore, it appears that this case is not filed by the petitioners but is filed by somebody else and the petitioners are being used to abuse the process of law. Therefore, we impose costs of Rs.10,000/- each on all the three petitioners so that in future such acts are not repeated. 3. The Public Interest Litigation is, accordingly, dismissed. 4. At the request of the learned counsel for the applicants, Chamber Summons nos.426 of 2007 and 1 of 2008 are allowed to be withdrawn. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) -: 5 :- (S.A. BOBDE, J.)