1 srk pil-101-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.101 OF 2010 Arvind Jaganath Bhosale ... Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents Mr.Harshad J. Kandalkar for the petitioner. Mr. Arif Bookwala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Nityoah Mehta and Mr. Jay Mehta i/by M/s. Nityoah Suneel Associates for respondent No.6. Mr. M.D. Naik, Assistant Government Pleader for State-respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. Friday, January 21, 2011 P .C. In this petition purporting to be PIL, the petitioner claiming to be a social worker, has challenged the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and other public authorities for the use of the playground known as Jambori Maidan, Worli, Mumbai for the purpose of Dahihand Utsav which is celebrated on Jamnasthami. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the land in question is a public purpose to be used as playground, respondent No.6 cannot be permitted to use the same for Dahihandi utsav. 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the petition is not filed bonafide, that this permission for Dahihandi is being granted for the last several years and that the festival in question is being celebrated once in a year. The learned counsel further relies on the judgment in the case of C.R.Dalvi and others v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others, 1987 Mh.L.J.373. 2 srk pil-101-10.sxw 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the celebration would also result into violation of the noise pollution norms and therefore, also the respondents should be injuncted from any such festival being held on the ground in question. 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 states that the hospital in question is an air conditioned hospital separated by wall between the playground and the hospital. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that only permission granted in favour of respondent No.6 is being challenged, though such permission is granted for Dahihand Utsav festival on hundreds of grounds in the city of Mumbai. 5. The learned AGP for respondent Nos.1,3 and 4 submits that the permission has been granted in accordance with the aforesaid judgment of this Court and that the petitioner himself is also the organizer of such Dahihand Utsav on Janmashtami day. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find no illegality in the matter of grant of permission for the use of playground in question for the purpose of Dahihandi Utsav on Janmashtami day which Utsav is celebrated only once in a year. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. CHIEF JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.