1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L)NO. 65 of 2009 Mr. Arvind Nerkar ...Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra ...Respondents Mr. A.Y.Sakhare a/w. Y.A.Sakhare i/b. YKS Legal for the petitioner. Mr. R.M.Kadam-Advocate General a/w. Mr. D.A. Nalawade-GP for the State. CORAM:- SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED:- July 24, 2009. P.C. We have heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has made the following prayers:- “(a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and direct the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to frame rules/regulations in respect of funds to be spent for slums (under any head) 2 located within the Mumbai orMumbai sub-urban District and not to deviate from the said Rules or Regulations while making distribution or spending the said amount; (b) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, prohibit the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 from making available the funds as sanctioned as per the letter dated 2.6.2009 of the Commissioner of the Respondent No.3 (Exhibit C hereto) to the Members of Parliament in the Mumbai or Mumbai Sub-urban District; (c)This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction direct the Respondents to make available total funds of Rs.200 crores as reflected in letter dated 2.6.2009 (Exhibit ‘C’ hereto) to the Members of Legislative Assembly from Mumbai and Mumbai Sub- urban District; (d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, this Honourable Court be pleased to restrain the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 from allotting, disturbing or making available Rs.100 crores for the Members of Parliament of Mumbai and Mumbai Sub-urban District. (e) ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (d) above; (f) costs of this Writ Petition be provided for; (g) such other and further reliefs as this 3 Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. This prayer is made on the basis that there are 32 elected members of the Legislative constituencies within the Mumbai and Mumbai sub-urban District. Besides, there are eleven members of Parliament elected from the same constituencies. 4. On 2nd June, 2009 the Commissioner of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority in his letter has mentioned that MMRDA in its meeting held on 12th February, 2009 has decided to allocate Rs. 100/- Crores for building latrines in the slums of Greater Mumbai and Rs.100/- Crores for other amenities to the slum inhabitants in Greater Mumbai. After issuance of this Letter a Joint representation was made by some elected representatives to the Chief Minister- on 13/6/2009 wherein they made various suggestions and objected to the money being given or allocated to the members of Parliament. According to them the allocation should be restricted to the elected members of the Legislative Assembly and particularly the group of the Petitioners. Not only this, another Public Interest Litigation was filed being PIL (L) No. 22/2009 which came to be disposed of by the Court vide its order dated 26/2/2009. The order reads as under: “ The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submits that the Government Resolution dated 18th February, 2009 is being implemented by the Government uniformly in all constituencies irrespective of political affiliation keeping in view the proposals made in each Constituency. In view of the statement made, nothing substantially 4 survives in this Public Interest Litigation. The same is disposed of accordingly. We make it clear that this statement or its recording by the Court would not tantamount to a decree or direction of this Court regarding payment of any amount. Public Interest Litigation disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.” 5. As already noticed, now a different prayer is being made that the amounts should not be allocated to the MPs. We find that the present Writ Petition is misconceived. The Learned Advocate General appearing for the State fairly stated before us that the Competent Authorities would regulate the expenditure of these 200 crores as mentioned in the Letter dated 2/6/2009 (Exhibit C). The relevant part of that Letter reads as under: “All the powers and authority shall vest with the Mumbai Slum Welfare Board for the effective implementation of both the schemes.” 6. It is clear from the fair reading of above Letter that the Powers and Authority shall vest with Mumbai Slum Welfare Board for effective implementation of both the schemes. It is nowhere stated in this letter that the money shall be allocated to either a member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly. It is stated in the affidavit that they propose to consult the public representatives, if it be felt necessary to which there can hardly be any objection. But we make it clear that the Slum Improvement Board shall act strictly in accordance with the stand mentioned in the letter dated 2nd June, 2009 and shall not allocate funds to any particular Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly. The amount spent by the Authority for the work shall 5 be executed under its power and control. 7. Petition is disposed of on the above terms. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M.KHANWILKAR, J