1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2947 OF 2001 Mr. Yashwant Ramji Mistry .. Petitioner Adult, Aged about 48 years, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at Dutta Mandir Road, Matanwala Chawl, Vakola, Santacruz (E), Bombay- 400 055. versus 1. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay, a body Incorporated under the provisions of Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, through its Municipal Commissioner, having their Head Office at Mahanagar Palika Marg, Fort, Bombay-1. 2. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Through Vakola Police Station, having their office at Mantralaya, Bombay-400 032. Mr. P. M. Havnur for the Petitioner Mr. M.S. Doctor, Amicus Curiae present. Ms. M. Kajale, Assistant Government Pleader for the State. Mr. D.H. Mehta with Ms. A.K. Savla for the BMC. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & V.M. KANADE, J. Date of reserving the order : 4 th April, 2008 Date of pronouncing the order : 10th April, 2008 2 P.C. This writ petition has been pending for quite some time before this court. The petitioner had approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing this Public Interest Litigation to appoint an expert committee to visit the Municipal schools run by the Municipal Corporation and Municipal school buildings in the city of Mumbai to report as to their condition and suggest such measures which may be appropriate to run these schools to the expected standard of education as well as to ensure that basic amenities are provided, the buildings are repaired to avoid dangering lives of the students. The committees were appointed by different orders of this court from time to time and reports were submitted. 2. Finally, the reports were considered by the appropriate authorities in the Corporation and they agreed to formulate the policy for maintenance and improvement of such school buildings and schools. 3. During the pendency of this writ petition and as a result of 3 the meetings held by the Corporation, the counsel for the parties filed minutes of order in this court on 4th April, 2008. Upon the mutual consent arrived at by Amicus Curiae, petitioner and the Corporation and as per the minutes submitted, we pass the following directions: Minutes of Order 1. Infrastructure Committees first interim report dated 14th July, 2006 and further report dated 30th November, 2006 taken on record. 2. Education Committees preliminary report dated July, 2006 and submitted in September, 2006 taken on record. 3. In furtherance of, and in partial modification of the order 7th July 2004, it is directed as under: a) Mr. Rajnish Dhall is appointed to the infrastructure committee to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr. Shyam Divan. 4 b) The vacancy created by the retirement of Shri A.S. Dalvi as City Engineer to be filled by the present incumbent of the aforesaid post. c) We are hopeful that, the committee chaired by the Chairman Shri S.S. Shinde of the Corporation, the directions of the court shall be carried out without default. We also direct that there shall be a surprise inspection conducted by Mr. Shinde and Amicus Curiae-petitioner from time to time to ensure that as per the decisions taken and as per the minutes recorded in this order due and timely steps are taken. This writ petition is, thus, disposed of in terms of the above consented order, however, with liberty to the Amicus Curiae to approach the court for due implementation of the directions in accordance with law. 5 d) Respondent No.1 to establish a dedicated infrastructure cell, exclusively for its schools, within a period of 8 weeks, as per Annexure II to the Infrastructure Committee's Report dated 30th November, 2006. e) The abovementioned infrastructure cell to forthwith take up repairs and renovations of all municipal schools, as per the manuals prepared in this regard by the Infrastructure Committee, after identifying the schools which are most in need of urgent repairs, and to make quarterly progress reports in writing to the infrastructure committee, and half yearly progress reports in writing to this Court. The first report to be submitted by Respondent No.1 to the Infrastructure Committee no later than 31st May, 2008, and the first report to be submitted to this Court by 30th August, 2008. 6 f) All further repairs and upgradation of Respondent No.1's school buildings to be undertaken by it strictly in accordance with the norms specified in Annexure I to the Infrastructure Committee's Report dated 30th November, 2006. g) Respondent No.1 to file an affidavit within 8 weeks summarizing the reports of the survey that was required to be conducted by its Ward Officers as per paragraph 6.1 of the Infrastructure Committee's report dated 19th July, 2006, and the status of the repairs undertaken by Respondent No.1 in this regard as per paragraph 7.0 of the said report. In this affidavit, Respondent No.1 to also give detailed schedule for completion of repairs in respect of the priority list of 179 municipal schools that have been identified for repairs. 7 h) Respondent No.1 to forthwith, in a phased manner, implement the Revised School Adoption Programme and the Partnership Programme as suggested by both Committees, and as annexed to the Education Committee's report dated July, 2006, and to file an affidavit of compliance, within 8 weeks, listing out in detail the steps and measures already taken by it in this regard, and those that are proposed to be taken in the future. i) Respondent No.1 to prepare a detailed brief of the aims and objectives for the recommended study to be undertaken by the S.P. Jain Institute of Management/Tata Institute of Social Sciences, and thereafter to commission such a study within a period of 24 weeks. For the purposes of the aforesaid study Respondent No.1 will give 8 full and free access of all its schools, and all other support and information as may be required, to the organization appointed to conduct the study, and will bear the costs of such study. Respondent No.1 is granted liberty to move this Hon'ble Court once the cost estimate of the study is available, if it has any objection in this regard. j) The Education Committee to make specific recommendations, within a period of 8 weeks, with regard to the steps and measures that need to be taken by Respondent No.1, and the time frame within which such steps and measures require to be taken, in order to be able to fulfill the Key Recommendations listed in paragraph 6 of its report dated July, 2006. k) Respondent No.1 to ensure that the Education Committee be permitted to visit 9 municipal schools of its choice, and be given free access with respect to the records of such schools, in order for it to more effectively achieve the objectives for which it was constituted. l) In order for expeditious implementation of the recommendations of the Committees, both Committees are empowered to issue time bound “for action recommendations” to Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 be directed to forthwith implement any such “for action recommendations” issued to it by the Committees, within the time frame recommended by the respective Committees. If for any reason, Respondent No.1 should be unable to act on such recommendations, or to implement the same within the time framed recommended by the Committee, Respondent No.1 will be 10 at liberty to make a written application to this Hon'ble Court to be relieved of such obligation, after giving detailed reasons in support of the application, by filing an affidavit of an officer not below the rank of Additional Municipal Commissioner. This writ petition is, thus, disposed of in terms of the above consented order, however, with liberty to the Amicus Curiae, petitioner to approach the court for due implementation of the directions in accordance with law. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.