1 crpil-5-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srj CRIMINAL P.I.L.NO.5 OF 2010 Arif Anjum Mohammed Shafi .. Applicant. V/s. The Commissioner of Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Malegaon & Others .. Respondents. Mr. Firoz Ansari, for Applicant. Mr. P.B.Raghuwanshi, Sr.Advocate i/b. Ms. Rutuja Ambekar, for Respondent No.1. Mr. P.A.Pol, PP, for State. CORAM:- B.H.MARLAPALLE AND U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED:- 28th SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 We have heard Mr. Ansari, learned Counsel for the Applicant, who claims this Petition to be a petition filed in the Public Interest and more particularly to make the Respondent No.1 Corporation free of corruption. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Respondent No.2 has filed affidavit in reply and we have perused the same. 2 crpil-5-10.sxw 3 The Petition is based on the letter dated 21st July, 1998 addressed by the Auditor to the Chief Officer of the Malegaon Municipal Council, pointed out that the Municipal Council was put to suffer loss of Rs.3.45,000 due to the casual and negligent attitude of some employees responsible for the property tax evaluation for the years 1997-1998 to 2000-2001. Admittedly, 12 years later, this Petition has been filed praying for directions against Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 6 to initiate appropriate action against Respondent Nos.3 to 5 who are the officers of the Municipal Council which is presently a Corporation. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also referred to the letter dated 3rd June, 1998 addressed by the Chief Officer to one Shri Shaikh Aasif Mohd. Hanif and the earlier order dated 25th May, 1998 passed by the Chief Officer of Malegaon Municipal Council. By the said order, four employees namely Shri Puntambekar, Shri Nihal Ahmed, Shri Mohammed Amin and Shri Bapu Waghela came to be suspended. 4 In the affidavit in reply filed by the Assistant Commissioner, it has been pointed out that the Petitioner is a professional in filing P.I.L. Petitions against the Municipal Corporation. He had filed Criminal Public Interest Litigation No.129 of 2004 and PIL No.6 of 2009 against Respondent Nos.1 and 2. It has been further contended in the said 3 crpil-5-10.sxw affidavit that after his interest was served, the Petitioner conveniently withdrew both the Petitions and, therefore, a question has been raised about his bona fides in approaching this Court. It has been further pointed out that on the report submitted by the Auditor and which report has been relied upon by the Petitioner, corrective steps as well as penal actions were initiated by the Municipal Corporation and four employees by name Shri Puntambekar, Shri Nihal Ahmed and Shri Mohammed Amin and Shri Bapu Waghela who were initially suspended on 25th May, 1998 were subsequently removed from service after due enquiry. Being aggrieved by the removal order, the employees had filed Revision Petitions and the same were dismissed. It is also stated that the assessment property tax was subsequently collected and the Municipal Corporation was not allowed to suffer any financial loss. It is also alleged that by filing Petitions one after another, the Petitioner is trying to use judicial machinery against the Officers of the Corporation and he has not exposed any public cause but he is very much interested in his personal interests. 5 It is clear that the Petitioner has approached this Court after 12 years. The Municipal Corporation has taken disciplinary action against four employees and removed them from the service and the property tax 4 crpil-5-10.sxw assessment / valuation was subsequently corrected so as to ensure that the Municipal Corporation did not suffer any financial loss. We have also perused the affidavit in rejoinder filed by the Petitioner and we are satisfied that no directions as prayed for are required to be issued and the Petition does not survive. 6 Hence the Petition stands rejected. (U.D.SALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)