Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded vs Municipal Council, Nanded & Ors

sanction of the State Government regarding allotment of the aforesaid plot in favour of the Appellant. The Assistant Town Planner by his communication dated 5.6.1986 informed Respondent No.1 that rental compensation for the subject plot for giving it on long lease of 60 years, would work out at Rs. 6,816/- per annum. A representation was made by the Appellant for reduction of the rental to a reasonable sum, owing to it being a Charitable Trust, working mainly for the benefit of girls and women and it had no source of income to pay such rental compensation. On reconsideration of the matter, the rental was fixed at Rs. 11 per annum by the Divisional Commissioner, vide his order dated 12.11.1986, wherein sanction was granted under Section 92 of the Act, for allotment of the subject plot to the Appellant on a lease for 60 years. Thus, it was an ex-post facto sanction granted in favour of the Appellant, after the possession of the plot was already handed over to the Appellant. It was this allotment of land in favour of the Appellant and also other allotments made by Respondent No.1 in favour of other allottees together C.A.No.2619/02 .... (contd.)

7. Thus, apart from examining the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by Division Bench, it is also necessary to examine the effect of death of the sole petitioner in a Public Interest Litigation, viz., whether the same would stand abated or can be allowed to be continued without bringing anyone else in place of the deceased petitioner.

time back. It is too well settled that no matter can be allowed to be prosecuted for and on behalf of a dead person or against a dead party but it is also no doubt true that a Public Interest Litigation, which generally raises an issue of general public importance, should not be allowed to be withdrawn or dismissed on technical grounds, if cognizance thereof has already been taken by the Court. But an important issue would still arise whether in case of death of a sole petitioner in a Public Interest Litigation, without bringing anyone else in his place, if the petition could still be allowed to be prosecuted or continued?

be allotted on the lease basis for 60 years and the main object of the Appellant, Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded is to conduct educational activities for girls.

31. The Chief Officer of Nanded Municipal Council, Nanded had also submitted his affidavit in reply to the Writ Petition and assigned various valid and cogent reasons for allotment of plot to the Appellant.

Thus, only after land user was changed, admittedly the Appellant is using it for the said purposes ie. Public and semi public use, which fact has not been denied by Respondents.

34.It has neither been disputed before us nor anything could be brought on record to show that Appellant is running the said hostel for any gains or profit. In fact, it is run on no profit-no loss basis. This is manifest from the details of the list of students C.A.No.2619/02 .... (contd.)

which was enhanced to Rs. 400/- in the year 2000. Most of the inmates were students and only handful of them were working women. We have been given to understand that as of today, it is charging only Rs. 750/- per month from each of the students occupying the room. The accounts of the Appellant are duly audited and reflect absolute transparency. There is no reason to doubt the correctness thereof.

36. In this regard, it is further necessary to mention that the provisions of Memorandum of Association of the Appellant clearly state that one of the objectives of the Appellant is to provide Hostel facilities for girls and working women. This further fortifies the stand of the Appellant that it is public or at least semi-public purpose.

37. Thus, looking to the matter from all angles, we are of the considered opinion that impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench cannot be sustained in law. It deserves to be set aside and quashed. We C.A.No.2619/02 .... (contd.)

accordingly do so. The appeal is accordingly hereby allowed.

Parties are directed to bear their own respective costs.

J. [DEEPAK VERMA] February 18, 2011 New Delhi.