1 pill107-10 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (LDG.) NO.107 OF 2010 S.Annamalai ....Petitioner V/s. The Director, Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents Ms.Prachi Khandge i/b M/s.M.P. Vashi & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr.Bhavin Manek i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms.Geeta Shastri, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr.A.T. Suryanwanshi i/b Markand Gandhi & Co. for Respondent No. 6. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. THURSDAY, 20TH JANUARY 2011. P.C. :- 1. In this petition, purported to be a Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner is the municipal councilor of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, has prayed for a permanent and temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from proceeding further with the survey of the structures and the slum dwellers without carrying out the survey of the plots of land for earmarking the plots which are going to be affected by the proposed project of re-development in Ward No.155, including Jari Mari, (Jari Mari-Chandivali area), Saki Naka, Mumbai-400 072. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction that the respondents 2 pill107-10 follow the guidelines contained in the national policy of 2007 for the purposes of rehabilitation. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the view that the petitioner has no right to restrain the respondents from carrying out the survey of the structures and the slum dwellers. If at all, any action is ultimately taken by any of the respondents after completion of the survey, it will be open to the concerned aggrieved party to challenge such action before appropriate forum, if at all any such proceeding lies. 3. As far as the other prayers are concerned, similar prayers were made in PIL No.117 of 2009 and by an order dated 29.4.2010, this Court held that no case is made out as the respondents do not propose not to implement the national policy, 2007. 4. The question of implementing this policy does not arise at this stage and even otherwise, if at all the policy is applicable and if the respondents do not implement the policy, it will be open to the concerned aggrieved party to move the Court for appropriate reliefs. 5. Hence without expressing any opinion, the Public Interest Limitation is, dismissed . CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.