1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.36 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.42 OF 2008 Sawinder Singh Keer .. Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Bhavesh Parmar for the petitioner Ms.P.A.Purandare for respondent nos.1 Ms.S.M.Dandekar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 Mr.A.Y.Bookwala, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Dinesh Shah i/b M/s.Lilani Shah & Co. 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 : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DATED : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 P.C.: 1. The learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 states that on 9.7.08, this court has passed an order in P.I.L. No.42 of 2008 which is subject matter of review wherein the statement purported to have been made by the learned counsel 2 for respondent nos.3 has been referred. It is made clear by the learned counsel for respondent nos.3 that he did make a statement that respondent nos.3 has initiated certain action against the petitioner who is member of club Millenium House and that disputes are pending between the parties which came to be recorded as litigation in para 4 of the order. 2. In view of this, our order be corrected and read accordingly. The word ’litigation’ in para 4 on page 3 be substituted by ’dispute’ as the party should not suffer for the error on the part of the court in putting a wrong word in the order. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who has sought review of our order. He submits that this court was influenced by the fact that the counsel for respondent no.3 stated that there are litigations pending between petitioner and respondent no.3. Today the learned counsel for respondent no.3 has clarified and stated that what he stated was not litigation but disputes. The court has corrected it accordingly. 3 4. We have gone through the review petition and we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for interference. This court while dismissing the PIL filed by the petitioner referred to the compilation of guide-lines to be followed for entertaining letters/petitions received in this court as Public Interest Litigation. Though such an exercise is also to be undertaken by the High Court and on the Appellate Side Chapter IV Rule 2A, there is a specific provision that no petition filed in P.I.L. should be entertained at the principal seat without obtaining orders from the Honourable the Chief Justice at Bombay and from the Senior most Judge available at the concerned benches but similar provision is not there in the Rules framed on the Original Side but still we do not find any reason why this court should not abide by the guide-lines which are followed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the matter and we are more than satisfied that this is not a fit case to be treated as P.I.L. and therefore, we dismiss it with cost which we have quantified at Rs.25,000/- for abuse of the process 4 of the court. 5. Review Petition stands dismissed accordingly with cost which is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. The cost should be paid by the petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of passing of the order otherwise the Collector (Mumbai) to recover the same as fine by resorting to the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. In case the cost is deposited in court, the same to be credited in the High Court Legal Aid Committee. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J )