ssp 1 WP 1151 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1151 OF 2011 Juhu Versova Sea-Face Residents Co-operative Welfare Association Society Ltd. and Anr. .....Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Atul Damle, for the petitioners. Ms.Madhubala Kajale, AGP, for the respondent-State. Ms.K.R.Punjabi, for the respondent-BMC. Mr.S.A.Waradkar i/by Ms.Nutan Moily, for respondent No.4. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE: 14 th NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. 1. In response to our order dated 08th November, 2011, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that even though the respondent No.4 MLA has contributed the funds for the development of the garden and recreation center in question, he will not place his board stating that the garden is developed from the funds of the MLA. It is submitted that the intention was only to see that the people may get recreation and garden facility and that the MLA is not interested in getting personal credit for the same. It is submitted that neither the MLA, nor his political party, will put its office by making any construction in the said ssp 2 WP 1151 of 2011 garden and that the area will be used for recreation and garden so that the people may enjoy the garden. The statement of the MLA through is Advocate is accepted and to be acted upon. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners also will not put any construction and the area will be allowed to be used as a recreation garden. The petitioners are also directed not to make any construction in any manner, except one which is used for garden activities. The petitioners and the respondent No.4 shall act accordingly. 3. In view of the stand taken by the respondent No.4, nothing further requires to be done in the matter and the garden can be developed for the benefit of the people at large. In so far as the question about the maintenance of the garden in question is concerned, the State Government initially may maintain the said garden and recreation facility and while maintaining the garden, appropriate care should be made to see that the garden should be cleaned and maintained properly. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the year 2005, the petitioners have made a representation to the State Government allowing them to maintain the garden. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a fresh application will be submitted to the State Government allowing the petitioners to maintain the garden so that the garden can be properly maintained. The petitioners may make a ssp 3 WP 1151 of 2011 representation in this behalf to the State Government within a period of three weeks from today. If any representation is made, the State Government after hearing the petitioners and any other concerned persons, may take appropriate decision in this behalf within a period of three weeks from the receipt of the representation from the petitioners and such decision should be taken in public interest and according to the rules and regulations. 5. Till then, the State Government is directed to maintain the garden in an appropriate manner. 6. In view of what has been stated above, the above writ petition is disposed of. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)