1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.44 OF 2002 Prakruti Prayog Parivar & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Others .. Respondents Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for respondent nos.1 Mr.Vinod Jadhav i/b Mr.V.D.Patil for respondent nos.2 CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 27TH AUGUST, 2008 DATED : 27TH AUGUST, 2008 DATED : 27TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C.: 1. None for the petitioners. 2. Heard the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. 3. The petitioners have filed this Public Interest Litigation seeking various orders and directions against the respondents for removal of 2 permanent construction carried out around Western and South-West region of Rankala Lake and to repair the damage caused to environment of the lake and surroundings and to restore the purity of the lake by removing all encroachments. The petitioner has further sought reliefs that respondent nos.1 should not permit use of motor boats in the lake as it will destroy the ecology and biodiversity of the Rankala Lake and surroundings. 4. In response to the petition, the respondents have filed their response, particularly respondent nos.1 is instrumental in development of the Rankala Lake for the benefit and enjoyment of the citizens and that whatever deficiencies were there have been rectified. 5. On the other hand, respondent nos.2 have put forth a grievance that respondent nos.1 without taking their permission have proceeded to beautify the lake under the terms and conditions of the letter handed over to respondent nos.1. 6. Today none is present for the petitioners 3 and respondent nos.3 to assist the court in the matter. Therefore, we have proceeded to hear the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 and dispose of this petition. 7. There is no dispute over the fact that Rankala Lake came into existence between 6 to 11th A.D. as a result of stone quarrying. In 1883 bund was constructed on the northern side of the Lake and it was being used by the natives for the purpose of bathing, washing clothes and catering to various needs of the people in the area. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that they have been active in the region and have exclusively worked for the protection of environment and are therefore, concerned about the upkeep and maintain ecological balance and hygienic environment so as to prevent it from getting spoiled. It is not disputed that the lake is visited by birds and has wide species of flora and fauna around it. 9. The learned counsel for respondent nos.1 pointed out to this court that respondent nos.1 has 4 taken necessary steps to see that lake is preserved and has taken necessary steps to prevent it from getting spoiled because of discharge of effluents like sewage water from the residential areas. It is submitted that presently whatever development has been carried out around the lake is with the object to preserve the lake and its marine life. 10. We find that the respondent nos.1 has taken appropriate steps to preserve the lake and beautify the same. The construction of musical fountain does not in any manner affect the ecology and biodiversity of the lake in question. There are certain foundation walls permitted to be erected which are having structure temporary in nature and caters to the needs of the citizens visiting them. 11. It is submitted that wall is also erected around the lake as it was required to be constructed to preserve the lake rather than cause any damage and that the said lake is included in the National Lakes Conservation Plan and the respondent no.1 has received a grant of Rs.865.22 lacs for conservation of Rankala lake which has 5 been utilised for the said purpose. Therefore, considering the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 by Rajendra R.Velhal, Engineer in Public Works Department of respondent no.1, we find that the respondent Corporation has taken sufficient steps in order to preserve the lake in question. Therefore, no further order or direction as sought for by the petitioner is required to be issued by this court. 12. Petition therefore stands disposed of. In view thereof, Civil Application No.1600 of 2003 does not survive. The same is disposed of accordingly. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J )