-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.114 OF 2006 Shri Ashok Gajanan Joshi : Petitioner V/s. Thane Municipal Corporation & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/b. Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr.R.S.Apte for respondent nos.1, 4 and 5. Mr.P.M.Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.2 & 3. ... CORAM : R.M.LODHA & S.A.BOBDE,JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2006. P.C. 1. We heard Mr.Anil Anturkar, counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has raised the grievance that the procedure contemplated under section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, for modification of the Development Plan dated 4.10.1999 has not been followed. 3. Two-fold submission is made by the counsel. First, he submitted that under section 37(1), the notice is required -: 2 :- to be given by the Planning Authority within sixty days from the date of direction given by the State Government for modification of the development plan. According to him, the State Government issued the direction to the Planning Authority on 28.7.2003. The notice was published on 18.10.2005 which is beyond sixty days and, therefore, bad in law. The second submission is, that as per the provisions contained in section 37(1), along with the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette, the affected parties also have to be notified personally which was not done and that invalidates the action. 4. The petitioner is the resident of Thane. He has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court as a public spirited citizen. He has averred that he has been prosecuting the cause highlighted in the Public Interest Litigation for several years from time to time. 5. Adverting to the second submission first, the submission that the affected persons ought to have been given notice individually by the Planning Authority leads us to believe that the Writ Petition seeks to espouse the cause of the few persons and that does not fit in the domain of Public Interest Litigation. Besides that, the submission does not seem to be meritorious. -: 3 :- 6. Insofar as the first submission is concerned, suffice it to say that the word "shall" occurring in section 37(1) providing for publication of the notice in the Official Gazette within sixty days from the date of such direction in the context of the provision cannot be said to be imperative. This is so because the provision does not provide for any penalty for non-compliance by the Planning Authority in not publishing the notice in the Official Gazette within sixty days of the issuance of the direction. More so, sub-section (1A) also gives the clue. It provides that if the Planning Authority does not do so within sixty days, the State Government shall issue the notice under the provisions of sub-section (1). 7. We are, thus, satisfied that the Public Interest Litigation does not deserve to be entertained. 8. Disposed of accordingly. R.M. LODHA, J. S.A. BOBDE, J.