vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.3 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.3 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.3 OF 2008 IN PIL (L) NO.19 OF 2007 Members of the Hutatma Babu Genu Mumbai Girni Kamgar Kreeda Kendra through Satyaki Varma & Anr. ... Petitioners V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ... Respondents Petitioners-in-person - present Ms.S.M. Mondare for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Ms.Uma Palsule-Desai, AGP, for Respondent Nos.4, 7 & 8 Mr.C.J. Sawant with Mr.V.C. Ghosalkar for Respondent Nos.5 & 6 Mr.G.I. Utangale for Respondent No.9 Mr.S.G. Surana for Resp. No.10 Mr.A.V. Khanolkar for Resp. No.11 CORAM: J.N. PATEL & J.N. PATEL & J.N. PATEL & SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 30, 2008 JANUARY 30, 2008 JANUARY 30, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard. 2. The main grievance of the petitioners, who appear in person, is that the proposed development if allowed to proceed it would adversely affect the facility of swimming pool i.e., the proposed 50’ wide road more particularly the deck of the pool alongwith the shower and change rooms as well as the pool’s water filter and the underground pumping system would be : 2 : destroyed and thereby irremediably destroying the over 40 year old olympic size swimming pool which is the only one of its kind in the city and for the labour class which is owned by the Government of Maharashtra. The matter was taken up for hearing but as the petitioners were not present nor anybody appeared for them, it was taken up, it being a public interest litigation, heard and disposed of. 3. In response to the review petition, the Executive Engineer of the Municipal Corporation has filed his affidavit in reply reiterating what he has said in reply to the petition and affirms the statement made in the said reply which is recorded by us in our order. 4. In the absence of any affidavit in rejoinder to the affidavit in reply filed by Koranne, the Executive Engineer of the Municipal Corporation, at the time the petition was taken up for hearing, the Court found that there is no reason to take a different view as development work has been taken in accordance with sanctions granted to Genu Kamgar Kreeda Kendra and it does not in any manner affect the existing Olympic size pool which would mean and include what has been highlighted by the petitioner in this review petition and, therefore, we do not find any error apparent on the : 3 : face of record to the review our decision. 5. In case the petitioner is aggrieved in person in respect of the said swimming pool being affected by the plans sanctioned by the Corporation and approved by the State Government, he has recourse to take remedies available to him in law as we were dealing with the matter as subject of public interest. 6. With these observations, the application is dismissed. (J.N. PATEL, J.) (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)