1 pil88-08 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.88 OF 2008 Bhrashtachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana Mumbai & Anr. ....Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioners. Mr.G.W. Mattos, A.G.P. for the Respondents. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. THURSDAY, 6TH JANUARY 2011 P.C. :- 1. In this petition purporting to be a PIL, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15.7.2008 passed by respondent No.2, the Collector of Stamps, Andheri Division, Mumbai for registration of the deed of confirmation executed by respondent No.5. 2. The petitioners have made the allegations about the illegalities and irregularities for registration of the said document. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Mumbai Division has filed an affidavit dated 19.11.2008. While denying the allegations made in the petition, the Deputy Inspector General of Registration has also made the following averments :- “The Joint Sub-Registrar, Andheri-I however, in violation of the said provisions of Section 21(1) and 55(3) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 prepared the 2 pil88-08 Index-II. I say that since the declaration deeds dated 12th August, 2008 did not contain the material particulars of the property in question, Column 2 of Index II ought to have been left blank. However, the Registering Authority, against Column-2, mentioned that as per the letter dated 15th July, 2008 issued by my office, the deed of Declaration has been registered, which was totally uncalled for. In view of the violations of the said provisions of law by the Registering Authority, my office vide letter dated 18th September, 2008 addressed to the I.G.R. & C.S., Maharashtra State, Pune, has proposed a Departmental Enquiry against the said Registering Authority, that is, the Joint Sub-Registrar, Andheri-I. Furthermore, necessary directions would be issued by my office within a period of one week to the concerned Administrative Officer to ensure that necessary corrections are made in the Index-II in accordance with law.” 4. At the hearing of this petition however, our attention was invited to the orders dated 6.10.2010 and 16.12.2010, indicating that the credentials of petitioner No.2 – Manav Shankar Joshi, claiming to be the president of petitioner No.1 – Trust - Bhrashtachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana are under serious doubt. 5. Having regard to the fact that the petitions filed by these very petitioners, have been dismissed on the ground of doubtful credentials of petitioner No.2, this petition is dismissed after taking note of the above statements made in the affidavit in reply. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.