1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 2844 OF 2009 Mrs. Roshan D.Sinor & Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents .... Ms.Tanu Mehta Adv. i/b Ms.Aparna Shinde Adv. for Petitioner Mr.Vishan Ghosalkar Adv. for Respondent No.1 Mr.S.R.Nargolkar AGP for State-Respondent no.6 Mr.Pankaj Kansara Adv. for Respondent no.5 .... CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. RESERVED ON : JULY 07, 2009 PRONOUNCED ON: JULY 10, 2009 P.C.:[ PER V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] 1. Petitioners are owners of property at Lonavala which is adjacent to Mumbai- Pune Expressway. Somewhere between 1998 to 2001, Mumbai-Pune Expressway was constructed adjacent to the petitioners ’ property. The case of the petitioners is that during the monsoon, storm water drains from the Expressway carried water directly into the petitioners ’ property leading to the flooding of the property. The further case of the petitioners is that the respondent no.4 has raised level of his plot which is adjacent to the plot of 2 the petitioners thereby creating a higher gradient of the contour of the land due to which flood water flows into the property of the petitioners as the gradient is higher and as water is not able to flow out it leads to water logging on the petitioners ’ plot of land. 2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners for directions to the respondents to construct or to make changes in the construction to ensure that petitioner ’s property does not get flooded with rain-water. It may be stated here that respondent no.1 is Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd., respondent no.2 is the Indian Road Builders (IRB) Public Ltd., respondent no.3 is Lonavala Municipal Council and respondent nos.4 and 5 are private parties. 3. It is an admitted fact that the work of Mumbai-Pune Expressway and construction of water-drains was completed by the year 2001. The petitioners approached this Court only in the year 2009 i.e. after the lapse of about eight years. We find that there is no explanation for the said delay. On the ground of delay and laches alone, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Moreover, the main grievance of the petitioners is against respondent no.4 who is a private party. The case of the petitioners is that respondent no.4 has raised the level of his property resulting into the alleged flooding into the petitioners ’ property. Respondent no.4 is a private party i.e. neither the State nor an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this writ petition under Article 226 of the 3 Constitution of India, is not maintainable. 5. Respondent no.1 constructed Mumbai-Pune Expressway and structure of water-drainage for discharge of water into the natural water streams. The structured water drains ultimately reached the main water body i.e. Indrayani river. Affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer of Respondent no.1- M.S.R.D.C. shows that the natural stream which is supposed to carry the entire discharge and merge into Indrayani river, is obstructed due to raising of plot by respondent no.4 in the year 2001 itself which is evident from the petitioners ’ letter to the respondent no.3 Lonavala Municipal Council which is annexed at Exhibit-C to the petition. As the construction by respondent no. 4 is at a higher level, consequently the water flows through M.S.R.D.C. drain and the natural stream gets blocked leading to pooling of water in the land of the petitioners. This natural stream which leads to Indrayani river, has been filled in and reclaimed by the respondent no.4. Thus, it is seen that it is the act of respondent no.4 who is a private party, which leads to flooding of water into the land of the petitioners. As stated earlier, respondent no.4 is a private party and would not be amenable to writ jurisdiction. 6. In view of all the above facts, writ petition is dismissed. [ BILAL NAZKI,J. ] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]