hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLAT ESIDE PIL NO. 142 OF 2008 Ramchandra T. Ghodake ... Petitioner Versus Sangli Miraj Kupwad City and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. A.M. Kulkarni for Petitioner. Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G.H. Keluskar for R. No. 1. Mr. A.H. Palekar, A Panle Counsel for R. No. 3. Mr. A.M. Savagave with Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for R. No. 4. Mr. Sangram Singh Yadav for R. Nos. 5 and 6. Mr. G.S. Godbole with Mr. P.M. Arjunwadkar for R. No. 2. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 04, 2010 P.C. After hearing the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that this is a dispute between Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the matter of breach of contract in respect of which Respondent No. 1 has remedy at law. Since Respondent No. 1 has remedy at law, in our opinion, the present petition filed by the Petitioner which seeks recovery of money from Respondent No. 2 cannot be entertained as Public Interest Litigation. In the light of the above, petition dismissed. Since it involves public money, the Corporation is directed to take whatever legal steps they are entitled to in law at any rate not later than four weeks from today. It is made clear that in so far as Respondent No. 2 is concerned, he may pursue his rights independently and this order will not stand in the way of an application under Section 11 moved by Respondent No. 2 which is pending before the learned Single Judge. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)