IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 89 OF 2007 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 89 OF 2007 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 89 OF 2007 Francis Anthony Xavier ...Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Akhilesh Upadhyay for the Petitioner. Mr.M.U. Pandey for Respondent No.4. Mrs.P.A. Purandare for BMC. Mr.S.R. Ingavale, AGP for the State. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : APRIL 10, 2008 DATED : APRIL 10, 2008 DATED : APRIL 10, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issue of Writ of Mandamus to the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 directing them to restore road widening at the same position as it existed in relation to CTS No.233, 234 and 234(1) as per DP Sanction Plan Resolution No.1218 passed in 6.2.1969 and remove the structures illegally erected by other respondents. This prayer made by the petitioner alongwith other prayers cannot be made subject matter of petition under Article 226 of the - 2 - Constitution of India. 3. The learned Counsel for the Corporation has stated and as already in pursuance of the affidavit filed on their behalf that the road line has not been changed and road has already been constructed long time back in accordance with Resolution No.1218 dated 6.2.1969 and the widening of road at a subsequent time is also in conformity with the road alignment provided under the Plan. 4. We have no reason to disbelieve the affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation and the argument advanced. Furthermore, we may also notice that this writ petition came up for hearing before this Court (Coram : Swatanter Kumar, C.J. & J.P.Devadhar, J.) on 13.3.2008. We have directed the learned Counsel for the petitioner to show as to how the present writ petition was maintainable in face of the order of the Division Bench dated 5th April, 2004 passed in Writ Petition No.2984/2003 wherein an identical controversy was raised and by a detailed judgment, the Court had dismissed the - 3 - writ petition. In that writ petition, controversy with regard to alignment of same road and with reference to the said CTS numbers including the ones in question. In fact, the matter fairly stands concluded by that judgment and there is no reason for us to take any different view particularly in view of the fact that various questions of fact have been raised in the writ petition that can particularly be agitated by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no merit in the petition. 5. Petition is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J. V.M. KANADE, J.