IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PIL NO. 77 OF 2001 Ajay Sadashiv Vaishampayan & Anr. ...... ......Petitioners V/s Mun. Corpn. Of City of Pune & Anr. ...... ...Respondents. Mr.R.M.Pethe, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr.R.G.Ketkar, Adv. For the respondent No.1. Mr.P.M.Patil, AGP for respondent No.2. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI AND A.P.DESHPANDE, JJ. 9.4.08 PC: This writ petition has been filed mainly seeking direction to the respondent to observe the provisions of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Preservation of Trees Act, 1975. In this prayer there cannot be any objection by the respondents and the prayer is granted. However it is pointed out that Act cannot be enforced and implemented because no rules under the Act have been framed although more than three decades have passed from the date the Act was enacted. There has been earlier petition also bearing No.64/06 in which by way of affidavit an undertaking was given by the respondents that rules will be framed. Therefore we direct that the Government shall under rule 1 making power frame the rules within a period of six months so that Act can be effectively enforced. Second submission is that the amendment to section 3 by virtue of amended Act of the Maharashtra XLIV of 1995 was unconstitutional as it made the Commissioner of Corporation as Chairman of three authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the Commissioner of Corporation is responsible for drawing the plans he has vested interest in cutting the trees for successfully executing the plans of development. Therefore there would be clash of interest as far as the Commissioner is concerned while acting as Commissioner of Corporation and while acting as Chairman of the authority. On the face of it we do not find that this submission can be accepted on the ground that this Committee envisages 30 members drawn from different sections of the society including some eminent persons. The Chairman would have one vote out of 30 votes. His position would further become clear after rules are framed. Therefore we are not deciding about the validity of this amendment at this stage. However when rules are framed and if the petitioners still feel aggrieved they may approach the Court again. With these observations writ petition stands disposed of. 9.4.08 (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE, J.) 2