1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 582 OF 2009 M/s. Saino Engineering Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ..Petitioners versus The Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. K. T. Thomas for Petitioners. Mr. Sandeep V. Marne for Respondent No. 1. Ms. M. H. Mhatre – APP for State. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATED : 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. The petitioners have challenged the issuance of process against the under Section 152(L) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, particularly under clauses (l), (g), (h), (j) and (o) thereof. 2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the prosecution is not tenable at the instance of the respondents -The Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) since the area where the BPMC Act applies vide Section 1. The petitioner is located in the Village Pawane. From the Notification annexed at Exhibit ‘C’ to the petition dated 17th December, 2 1991, it appears that the Government of Maharashtra has constituted various areas including Village Pawane to be the City of New Bombay for the purposes of the Act under sub section (2) of Section 3 of the BPMC Act, It was however contended on behalf of the petitioners that from the Schedule to the Government Memorandum dated 16th December 1994 at Exhibit ‘E’ to the petition, it appears that the Village Pawane fall in MIDC and that MIDC is therefore the planning authority for the area and not NNMC. The Note on which the petitioner relies, reads as follows: “NOTE : All villages shown above are (on part) for the reason that wherever, the area in these villages falls in MIDC, MIDC will be the planning authority in respect of areas falling under MIDC’s control.” It is not possible to read the Note as purporting to state that that all the villages referred to earlier in the Schedule fall in the MIDC. All that the Note states is that if the villages fall in the MIDC, the planning authority for the area will be MIDC. At this stage, it is not possible to infer that NMMC cannot maintain the prosecution against the petitioner. That question will have to be decided at the trial. Dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.)