1 lpa-213-11gr.sxw dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.213 OF 2011 IN CAW/2998/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2341 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CAL/284/2011 Anil Motiram Kalyankar and ors. .... Appellants vs Shree Jogeshwar Mahadev Mandir Trust and ors. .... Respondents Mr. S.C. Pungaliya i/by Mr. Abhishek M. Pungaliya for the Appellants. None for respondent. CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : September 08, 2011 P.C.: By this Appeal, the original Petitioners in Writ Petition No.2341 of 2009 challenge the order passed by a learned Single Judge declining to make an interim order to operate during the pendency of the writ petition. Trustees of a Public Trust were granted permission 2 lpa-213-11gr.sxw to transfer trust property. By order dated 1 July 2006 an application was made for revoking the sanction granted by the Authorities under the Bombay Public Trust Act. That application for revocation was rejected by order dated 6 October 2008. In the writ petition, it is that order which is challenged. The learned Single Judge has admitted the Petition for final hearing. In that Petition, the Petitioners had filed Civil Application No.2998/2010 seeking interim reliefs. There were two prayers made for interim orders. By one prayer, stay of the operation of the order dated 1 July 2006 granting sanction was claimed and by other prayer, a direction was sought against the Respondents restraining them from carrying out any development activity in the trust property. The learned Single Judge has declined to make any interim order however expedited the hearing of the petition and has said that whatever development takes place, will be subject to the result of the petition. 2 We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellants. Apart from the fact that this Appeal is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge declining to grant interim relief which is entirely in the discretion of the learned Single Judge, we find that the learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons for declining to make an 3 lpa-213-11gr.sxw interim order. In the application itself, the Petitioners have stated that the development plan has already been sanctioned in the month of January 2010 and that the developer has already demolished two structures. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to make an interim order. In our opinion, an order made by the learned Single Judge that any development that takes place during the pendency of the petition will be subject to the result of the petition adequately protects the interest of the Petitioners. The Appeal cannot be entertained and the same is rejected. No costs. 3 In view of disposal of Appeal, Civil Application (L) No.284/2010 does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D. K. DESHMUKH,J.)