1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.42 OF 2008 Sawinder Singh Keer .. Petitioner Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Bhavesh Parmar for the petitioner Ms.P.A.Purandare for respondent nos.1 Mr.D.A.Nalawade, G.P. for respondent no.2 Mr.A.Y.Bookwala, Sr.Advocate i/b M/s.Lilani Shah and Co. for respondent nos.3 CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED : 9TH JULY, 2008 DATED : 9TH JULY, 2008 DATED : 9TH JULY, 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner has approached this court in public interest seeking direction against B.M.C. to initiate action against all the clubs operating within its limits for not complying with the terms 2 and conditions on which IOD was granted to the club and for that the petitioner seeks a High Powered Committee comprising of retired High Court Judge alongwith Senior Officers of respondent nos.1 and 2 to be appointed and they should submit its report to the court. 3. The general allegation against the respondents is that they are permitting clubs within the limits of M.C.G.M. to commit breach of the terms and conditions like permitting them to encroach upon 2/3 of the open space, indulging in commercial / business activities and not complying with the terms and conditions imposed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 at the time of obtaining permission, cheating and defrauding large number of persons of large amounts of money under the guise of making the members of the Club with promises of facilities to be enjoyed by them. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.3 pointed out that this is not a public interest litigation but a private interest litigation initiated by the petitioner whose main 3 grievance is against respondent nos.3 that this club millenium house which has been pointed out in para 3 in the petition speaks for itself and that the whole purpose of the petitioner is to harass the respondent nos.3 as respondent nos.3 has initiated certain actions against the petitioner who is member of club millenium house and that litigations are pending between the parties. 5. We find much substance in the submission of the learned advocate appearing for respondent nos.3. This court is not a monitoring body for breach of the terms and conditions committed by various social clubs in the city of Mumbai. In specific case, the members of the club can approach the competent authority or initiate legal proceedings, particularly in case of the petitioner who appears to be aggrieved over this issue after sleeping over for several years only when his relations with this club are spoilt and they are litigating at various forums. Therefore, we do not find that this is a fit case that the court should spend its time in entertaining this petition by granting the reliefs sought for by the petitioner 4 by appointing a High Powered Committee headed by Retired High Court Judge, as if this court has no other business to do. 6. Petition is dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs.25,000/-. The cost to be deposited in this court within 4 weeks from the date of passing of this order. On such cost being deposited, the same be credited in the account of High Court Legal Aid Committee. On failure to deposit the amount as directed by this court, the Collector, Mumbai would recover the same as fine by resorting to the Maharashtra Land Revenue code. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J ) ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J ) ( K.U. CHANDIWAL, J )