PETITION | www.karmayog.com

Get involved in YOUR city and locality

Improve Your World

Home | About Us | Sitemap | Search | Contact Us

>> Petition filed before High Court in July 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. OF 2006

In the matter of Article 226 of the Constitution of India
And
In the matter of D.C. Regulations 1991, Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, The Right to Information Act 2005.
And
In the matter of illegal and unauthorized construction on the plot of land bearing
Final Plot No. 128 TPS III, Borivli (West) reserved for garden and Commercial Exploitation of the same.

1. Smt. Meera Sadanand Kamath )
aged about 60 years residing at Flat)
No. 2, Ruchi Co-operative Housing )
Society, Chikoo Wadi Road, Shimpoli)
Borivli (West), Mumbai - 400 092 )

2. Subodh Shripad Nageshkar )
aged about 52 years residing at )
Block No. 4, Borivli Vijaydeep Vijayawadi)
Vasantrao Chogle Marg, Babhai )
Borivli (West), Mumbai 400 092 ) … Petitioners
V/s
Municipal Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Greater )
Bombay, a Statutory Body formed )
And established under the Mumbai )
Municipal Corporation Act 1888 )
Having its office at Municipal Cor- )
poration Building, Mahapalika Marg,)
Opposite, C.S.T. Mumbai - 400 001)

2. The Superintendent of Gardens )
Veermata Jijabai Bhosale Udyan-Zoo)
Dr. Ambedkar Road )
Byculla, Mumbai-400027. )

3. Assistant Commissioner R/Central)
Ward, Municipal Corporation Office )
Borivli (West), Mumbai - 400 092 )

4. Mr. Shashi Nair )
Secretary, Poinsur Gymkhana, Netaji)
Subhash Chandra Bose Kridangan )
Poinsur Gymkhana Marg, Poinsur )
Kandivli (West), Mumbai 400 067 )

5. Poinsur Gymkhana )
Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose )
Kridangan, Poinsur Gymkhana Marg,)
Poinsur Kandivli (West) )
Mumbai - 400 067 )

6. Mr. Gopal Shetty )
Member of the Legislative Assembly)
Maharashtra residing at Shetty House)
L. T. Nagar, Poinsur, Kandivli (West) )
Mumbai - 400 067. )

7. Mr. Prakash Mehta )
President Bombay District, Bharatiya )
Janta Party, having office at Kanti )
Terrace, Dadar (East), Mumbai - 28 )

8. Mr. J. J. Rawal, )
President, Janaseva Kendra )
Bearing Reg.No.F-6690-Mumbai )
102, Nand Dham, Lokmanya Tilak Road,)
Borivli (West), Mumbai 400 092 )

9. Charity Commissioner )
Maharashtra State, Dharmaday Ayukta )
Bhavan, 3rd Floor, 83, Dr. Annie )
Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018)

10. Senior Inspector of Police )
Borivli Police Station, )
Borivli (West), Mumbai - 400 092 )

11. State of Maharashtra )
through the Ministry of Urban )
Development Mantralaya, )
Mumbai - 400 032 ) .. Respondents

To
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND
OTHER PUISNE JUDGES OF THE HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE
PETITIONERS ABOVENAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH

1. The Petitioners are citizens of India and are entitled to all the rights and privileges enshrined in the Constitution of India and other enactments having addresses as mentioned in the cause title of the Petition. The Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Respondent No. 4 is the secretary of the Respondent No. 5 having address as mentioned in the title of the Petition. Respondent No. 5 is a registered organization bearing registration No. E/18180/BOM/1999. Respondent No. 6 is the MLA, founder of Respondent No. 5 and looking after the entire management and affairs of the Respondent No. 5. The Respondent No. 7 is the President of Mumbai District of Bharatiya Janta Party to which Respondent No. 6 also belongs as MLA. Respondent No. 8 is the President of the Janaseva Kendra a registered organization having Registration No. F-6650-BOM having office as mentioned in the cause title. Respondent No. 9 is the Charity Commissioner with whom the Respondent No. 5 and 8 are registered. Respondent No. 10 is the Senior Inspector of Police and Respondent No. 11 is the State of Maharashtra.

2. The Petitioners are residents of the same locality where the subject plot of the Petition reserved for garden is situated and in respect of which the present Petition is filed. The Petitioners are involved into various social activities and have been raising time and again issues relating to the Public and of public interest before the concerned authorities.

3. The subject matter of the present Petition is plot of land bearing Final Plot No. 128 admeasuring 25,395.06 square meters lying, being and situated at T.P.S. III at Junction of Lokmanya Tilak Road and 57th Road, Borivli (West), Mumbai - 400 092. The said land is reserved for the purpose of Garden exclusively for the General Public the same has been allotted by the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to Respondent No. 5 allegedly on adoption basis and the Respondent No. 5 is illegally and unauthorizedly carrying out construction of boating lake, viewing deck, Amphitheatre, amusement park, entrance plaza, ticket counter, skating ring, D.J. Corner, food court, mini train track, Boat Jetty, Stage, Go Carting, Activity Plaza Toilet Block bridge etc. on the said plot of land reserved exclusively for garden. The said plot also has been reserved and acquired by the Bombay Municipal Corporation under the Town Planning Scheme for the General Public residing in the said locality for the purpose of garden. Due to the unauthorized construction as mentioned hereinabove carried out by Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 on the said plot of land and because Respondent Nos. 4, 5 6 and 8 are not keeping open the said plot for general public the purpose for which the said plot has been reserved is vitiated and the general public residing in the said locality, the children and students are not able to enjoy and utilize the said plot of land for the purpose of garden for which it was reserved and therefore the subject matter of the present Petition involves public interest and therefore the present Petition is filed as Public Interest Litigation.

4. The Petitioners state that the said plot bearing Final Plot No. 128 admeasuring 25,395.06 square meters is reserved for the purpose of garden and people in the said locality where the said plot is situated require the said plot for garden. The Petitioners state that in the said plot reserved for garden there was a lake since last more than 100 years and the said lake was used by the Public for the purpose of immersing Ganpati idols and for performing other religious rituals etc.
5. The Petitioners state that the Municipal Corporation has now allotted the said plot to the Respondent No. 5 allegedly on adoption basis and the office bearers of the Respondent No. 5, Respondent No. 4, Respondent No. 6, Office bearers of Respondent No. 8 and the Office bearers of the Municipal Corporation in collusion with the office bearers of the Respondent No. 5 are developing the said plot with intention to exploit the same commercially by inviting membership from the General Public including life membership and charging huge amount of membership fees and fees for utilizing the various facilities provided on the said plot from the General Public. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay is the owner of the said plot under the Town Planning Scheme, the said plot is reserved exclusively for garden. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "A" is the copy of the plan in which plot reserved for garden is described and demarcated in red colour boundary line. The Petitioners state from the said plan it is clear that the said plot of land i.e. F.P. No. 128 is exclusively reserved for garden. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit"B" is the copy of the T.P remarks dated 16.05.2005 addressed to M/s Jugar Y. Tanna, Architect in which the area of the Final Plot No. 128 is mentioned as 25,395.06 square meters.

6. The Petitioners state that in the said remarks it has been specifically mentioned that Final Plot No. 128 is reserved as garden as per T.P. scheme as well as S R D P (sanctioned revised development plan). Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "C" is the copy of the redistribution and valuation statement which shows the net demand against the Final Plot No. 128 as Rs.4,28,550.75. The Petitioners state that flouting the provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, Development Control Regulations, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act and overlooking the requirement of the residents of the said locality, children, students and elderly people, the said plot has been allotted by the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to the Respondent No. 5 allegedly on adoption basis for maintaining the said garden though in fact the Respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 have carried out and are still carrying out illegal and unauthorized construction on the said plot of land reserved for garden and are exploiting the same commercially by charging entrance fee, membership fee, including life membership fees and fees for various facilities which are illegally and unauthorisedly constructed in the said plot of land reserved for garden.

7. The Petitioners state that the Respondent no. 5 is a private organization formed by the Respondent No. 6 keeping various office bearers on the front to run the said organization and the said organization is being run with profit motive and in order to satisfy the political needs and commercial requirements of Respondent No. 6.

8. The Petitioners state that Respondent No. 5 has fixed three huge gates on the boundary of the said plot of land with the name Swatantryaveer Savarkar Udyan and the said gates are always closed and the General Public is not allowed to enter into the said plot of land without paying the fees as prescribed by the Respondent No5. The Petitioners state that on the gates placed on the said plot of land there are ticket counters constructed by the Respondent No. 5 and the General Public is made to buy tickets in order to enter into the said plot of land. The Respondent no. 5 has constructed boundary wall almost to a height of 6 ft. around the said plot of land and nothing can be seen in side the said plot from outside the plot of land and therefore the said plot can not be identified by the General Public as garden. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "D" are the photographs showing the huge gates and the boundary on the said plot of land. Petitioners state that Respondent No.5 has placed almost 5-6 security guards on the said plot and the said guards remain present 24 hours and do not allow the general public to enter into the said plot unless they purchase tickets and have paid the membership fees.

9. The Petitioners state that the Respondent No. 5 has constructed on the said plot boat jetty, ticket counter, boating lake, D.J. Corner, Food Court, Skating Ring, Amphitheatre, toilet blocks, bridge, game area, joggers park, viewing deck etc. on the said plot of land. The Petitioners state that the maximum area of the said plot of land admeasures 25,395.06 square meters has been utilized by the Respondent No. 5 for the above mentioned construction and there is no area as such left out for the purpose of garden on the plot of land. The Petitioners state that the construction as mentioned hereinabove are not at all permitted as per the Development Control Regulations, Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, MRTP Act and various circulars issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "E" is the copy of the lay out plan submitted by the Respondent No. 5 to the Municipal Corporation and the construction which has been carried out on the said plot of land reserved for garden is described in the said lay out plan. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "F" is the copy of the Newspaper advertisement dated 19th May, 2006 which has been published by the Respondent No. 5 themselves in the newspaper - Times of India.

10. The Petitioners state that as per the said advertisement the Respondent No. 5 has constructed 1.2 km. long jogging track, paddled boat for boating, 225 square feet long sitting area, Cafeteria, art gallery and Amphitheatre with a sitting capacity of 170 plus as per the said advertisement Respondent No. 5 has also constructed skating ring, Dash car area, mini aquarium, T.V. Room etc. on the said plot of land. As per the said advertisement the Respondent No. 5 has collected an amount of Rs. 22,00,000/- from the General Public for the construction of statue of Veer Savarkar. Petitioners state that in fact in the announcement made by Mr. Gopal Shetty at the time of inauguration it was stated by him that an amount of Rupees 26 Lacs has been collected from the general public and the said amount has not been utilized only for the purpose of construction of the statue but for the purpose of construction of facilities upon the said plot which are to be exploited commercially.

11. The Petitioners state that the constructions as described by the respondent No. 5 are not allowed at all on plot of land which is exclusively reserved for the purpose of garden for the general public and as such Respondents Nos. 4, 5 6 and 8 have violated the Development Control Regulations, provisions of MRTP Act, MMC Act for developing the garden, various circulars issued by the Municipal Corporation for the development and maintenance of the garden on adoption basis.

12. The Petitioners state that the soil on the plot of land reserved for garden has been excavated and stone pieces and concrete has been laid down on the entire plot of land making it absolutely impossible to be developed as garden. The Petitioners state that they have laid down tiles on the plot of land due to which it is impossible to do plantation on the said plot of land to develop the same as garden. The Petitioners state that from the photographs annexed to the Petition it is very much clear that the Respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have not at all carried out the development of the garden on the said plot on the contrary they have constructed facilities mentioned hereinabove in order to exploit the said plot of land reserved for garden commercially by charging membership and entrance fees and life membership fees for utilizing various facilities which are constructed on the plot of land changing user of the said plot of land from garden to amusement park and as such the General Public is deprived from garden for which the said plot has been reserved.

13. The Petitioners say that contrary to the provisions of law, rules and regulations, circulars issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation for development of garden the Respondents Nos. 4,5,6 and 8 in collusion with Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 who are hand in glove with the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 and the officers of the Respondents Nos. 5 and 8 are misusing the said plot for the purpose of satisfying their commercial benefits, political gains, political advertisement, political meetings on the said plot of land. The Petitioners state that big banners, photographs of leaders of Bharatiya Janta Party, their flags have been placed on the boundary of the said plot of land in which the Respondent No. 6 is mentioned as dreamer of Veer Savarkar Udyan. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "G" are the photographs showing misuse of the said plot for the political ends and political advertisement.

14. The Petitioners state that Respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 8 are charging huge amounts of membership from the General Public by misguiding and misrepresenting them that the said plot of land has been allotted to them by the Municipal Corporation permanently and they have developed the said plot of land with various facilities in the nature of amusement park as allotees thereof and therefore they are entitled to charge entrance fees, membership fees and the fees for utilizing various facilities from the General Public. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "H" is the copy of the membership form issued by the Respondent No. 5. The Respondent No. 5 is issuing the said form after charging Rs. 100/- from the General Public. The said form mentions caption for "life Membership".

15. The Petitioners states that Respondent No. 5 has charged Life Membership fees of Rs. 16,530/- from one Popat Nitin Purshottamdas. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "I" is the copy of the said Receipt dated 31.12.2005. The Petitioners say that similarly Respondent No. 5 has charged Life Membership fees and other membership fees from other persons. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "J" is the copy of the receipt dated 8.1.2006, Exhibit "J-1" is the copy the receipt dated 8-1-2006. Exhibit "J-2" is the copy of the receipt dated 10-3-2006.

16. The Petitioners state that few persons who have paid the fees as Life Membership and subsequently came to know that the Respondent No. 5 has carried out construction illegally on the said plot of land which is reserved for garden and that Respondent No. 5 has no authority to issue such Life Membership by charging fees from them, they started demanding refund of their amount from the Respondent No. 5 and when Respondent No. 5 refused to return the amount to them the said persons gave information to Local Newspaper named Metro Malad-to-Borivli mentioning therein that the said persons have paid an amount of Rs.16,530/- for obtaining membership of the Respondent No. 5 to use facilities life long on the said plot of land reserved for garden. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "K" is the copy of the Report dated 31st May, 2006 in the Newspaper Metro Malad-to-Borivli. Petitioners state that to great surprise even the persons who have taken life membership are also charged for utilizing facilities on the said plot.

17. The Petitioners state that after information which was given in the said Newspaper the Respondent No. 5 put up Notice Board on the said plot of land mentioning therein that Respondent No. 5 has taken a decision to return the Membership of the said persons. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "L" is the photograph of the said Notice Board.

18. The Petitioners state that Respondent No. 5 is charging entrance fees from the Public in order to allow them to enter into the said plot of land without any permission from the Municipal Corporation for charging such entrance fees. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "M" are copies of the tickets, entry fee tickets and amusement tickets issued for entering into the said plot of land. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "N" is the copy of the photograph of the board placed by the Respondent No. 5 on the said plot of land which mentions the entrance fee and the membership fee to be charged from the people who want to enjoy the facilities provided by Respondent No. 5 on the said plot of land.

19. The Petitioners say that there was a report in the Indian Express Newspaper in its edition dated 14th June, 2006 which displays the various construction carried out by the Respondent No. 4,5,6 & 8 on the said plot of land and from the said photographs it is very much clear that there is no garden and no plantation at all on the said plot of land. The said Report mentioned that 1000 members have already subscribed for Life Membership of the Respondent No. 5 to utilize the facilities on the said plot of land constructed by Respondent no. 5. The Petitioners state that such Life Membership which has been collected till now by Respondent No. 5 from the general public comes to Rs. 1,65,30,000/- and similarly the form fees at the rate of Rs. 100/- per person which has been collected by the Respondent No. 5 comes to Rs. 1,00,000/- The collection of the above mentioned amounts from the General Public by misguiding them that the said plot of land has been allotted to the Respondent No. 5 for ever and that they are entitled to carry out the construction on the said plot of land and charge fees from the General Public and subscribe various membership including life membership amounts to cheating the general public, misrepresentation, misguiding, breach of Trust, and amounts to violation of provisions of law, the rules and regulations and circulars issued by the Municipal Corporation and clearly shows that the Respondents Nos. 4,5,6 and 8 are not at all interested in maintaining and developing the garden on the said plot of land and on the contrary Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 are set to exploit the said plot of land commercially, for their political benefit and political advertisement.

20. The Petitioners state that in the said Report the Assistant Municipal Commissioner ("M" Ward East) Mr. Prakash Patil has been quoted to say that that no one has right to construct such amusement facilities on public place and similarly the Superintendent of Gardens Mr. P. Naringrekar is quoted to say that the Corporation has just given Respondent No. 5 the said plot on adoption basis but never given them permission to collect membership fees. It is further quoted that the case has been forwarded to the Law Officer and they will soon take necessary action. The Petitioners state that despite the various reports in the Newspapers mentioning and clearly displaying the illegal and unauthorized construction carried out by the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 on the said plot of land reserved for garden no action has been taken by the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and the other authorities against the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 which clearly shows that the officers of the Respondents No. 1 to 3 are hand in glove with Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 and they are acting in collusion with the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 with their own ulterior motives thereby depriving the General Public of their right to use the said plot of land as Garden. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "O" is the copy of the said Report dated 14th June, 2006 in the Newspaper Indian Express.

21. The Petitioners with due respect to the freedom fighter Swatantryaveer Savarkar state that the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 have unauthorisedly constructed 13' high statute of Swatantryaveer Savarkar on the said plot of land and for the construction of the said statute the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 and their other associates have collected an amount of more than Rs. 26,00,000/- from the General Public Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "P" is the copy of the Receipt dated 16.5.2006 issued by Respondent No. 8 for collecting the amounts. Exhibit "P-1" is the English translation of Exhibit P.

22. The Petitioners state that though the said plot of land has been allotted by Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to the Respondent No. 5, it appears that the Respondent No. 6 who is founder of Respondent No. 5, through his influence has involved various other organizations which are functioning under him in the process of construction on the said plot of land and in the process of collecting amounts by misguiding the people. The Petitioners state that Janaseva Kendra which is also a registered organization but seems to be functioning under the Respondent No. 6 and is being run by members of Bharatiya Janta Party has also collected huge amounts in the name of constructing the said statute. The Petitioners state that the Respondent No. 6 has formed Swatantryaveer Savarkar Smarak Samiti in which the leaders of Bharatiya Janta Party including various Corporators are members.

23. Petitioners state that from the above mentioned facts it is clear that the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 by misusing the peoples sentiments have collected huge amounts from the General Public in the name of the respected freedom fighter Swatantryaveer Savarkar but the said amount exceeds much more than the construction costs of the said Statue and the said amounts which has been collected will be used for personal and political gains of the Respondent No. 6. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "Q" is the copy of the pamphlet published and circulated by Janaseva Kendra. Exhibit "Q-1" is English translation of Exhibit Q. The Petitioners state that it is surprising to note that Janaseva Kendra appears to be run by Janaseva Sahakari Bank Limited (Borivli W).

24. The Petitioners state that from the above facts it is clear that by getting the said plot of land allotted from the Municipal Corporation the Respondent No. 6 who is a sitting MLA as well as sitting Corporator of Ward No. 152 and who is Ex Deputy Mayor of Mumbai from Bharatiya Janta Party is misusing the said plot of land after getting the same allotted from the Municipal Corporation by using his influence and authority.

25. The Petitioners state that even the invitation letters which have been published and circulated show Symbol of Bharatiya Janta Party mentioning that function is arranged by Bharatiya Janta Party, Janaseva Kendra and Poinsur Gymkhana. The Petitioners state that the collusion of the Officers of Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 with the Respondents No. 4 to 6 is clear from the fact that though the Municipal Commissioner Shri Johnny Joseph and the Hon'ble Mayor Shri Datta Dalvi are very well aware of the illegal construction carried out on the said plot reserved for garden by the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 their names have been mentioned on the invitation cards published by Respondent No. 5 and 6. as Chief Guest. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "R" is the copy of the Invitation Card. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "S" is the English translation of Exhibit R. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "T" is the copy of another invitation card. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "U" is the English translation thereof.

26. The Petitioners state that the Municipal Corporation has issued a letter bearing No. CH.ENG./1176/DPC/GEN on 10th September, 1999 by which the Policy Guidelines for allowing development of lands reserved for public purpose of Gymnasium/Gymkhana, Club, Stadium, swimming pool, recreation ground and play ground has been laid down. The Petitioners state that as per the said guide lines it has been laid down that a suitable agency for developing plots for the purposes they have been reserved will be decided by inviting Applications by publishing advertisement. The Petitioners state that as per the said guidelines no permanent structure except watchman's chowky, Mali's room shall be permitted. The Petitioners state that by the said guidelines the Municipal Commissioner shall grant license to maintain the plots reserved for the respective purposes for a period of 5 years from the date of execution of the Agreement on adoption basis. It is also mentioned in the said guidelines that the Licensee shall not use the said Garden/P.G./R.G. for any other purposes than for maintaining the same for the purpose for which the plot is reserved. It is further mentioned in the said guidelines that "in the event of breach of any of the terms and conditions of the Agreement by the Licensee the Deputy Commissioner shall be at liberty to revoke the license with 24 hours notice." Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "V" is the copy of the guidelines issued by the Municipal Commissioner dated 10th September, 1999.

27. The Petitioners state that as per the said guidelines the license should be granted for developing and maintaining garden only to the organization/corporate bodies with sound financial position and to substantiate the sound position the corporate bodies are required to submit audited balance sheet. The Petitioners state that therefore from the above mentioned guidelines it is clear that only the organizations and corporate bodies who have sufficient funds of their own will be given on license to maintain and develop the plots and no membership fees, donations can be allowed to be collected from the General Public by the organizations for the purpose of maintaining and development of the plots.

The Petitioners state that another circular has been issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation on 8.1.2001 which mentions that applications from the eligible registered organizations will be invited by Public advertisement in 3 recognized newspapers, the local organization shall be given first preference and no construction except the Mali's Chowky of 10 x 10 square feet shall be permitted. The said circular also specifically mentions that Public shall be given free entry. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "W" is the copy of the Circular dated 8th January, 2001.

28. The Petitioners state that the Municipal Corporation has further issued a Circular for development and maintaining of gardens on 18th August, 2001. The said circular clearly mentions that no commercial exploitation shall be permitted without the sanction of the Municipal Commissioner in writing. It also mentions that in case of housing complexes or Townships, preference shall be given to the Developer/Federation of housing societies and that the rates can be charged only with the prior permission of the Municipal Commissioner. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "X" is the copy of the said Circular dated 18.8.2001.

29. The Petitioners state that the Respondent No. 1 to 8 have violated the above mentioned circulars and guidelines issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Respondents Nos. 4,5,6 and 8 have constructed the boundary of 6 ft height and over that they have fixed railing of 1.5 feet though as per the rules the height of the boundary cannot be more than 2.5 feet as such the Respondents Nos. 4,5,6 and 8 have violated the above mentioned guidelines.

29. The Petitioners state that Petitioner No. 1 has made an application under Right to Information Act to the Municipal Corporation on 29th April 2006, in the reply to the said Application under Right to Information Act, the Assistant Engineer Maintenance Department supplied few of the information. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "Y" is the copy of the said Information dated 10.5.2006. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "Y-1" is the copy of Model Agreement prescribed by Bombay Municipal Corporation for allotment of plots reserved for public purpose for development and maintenance on adoption basis.

30. The Petitioners say that as per the information supplied by the Assistant Engineer, ownership of the said Plot is with the Municipal Corporation and the said Final Plot No 128 is reserved for Garden as per the Sanctioned Town Planning Scheme No. III Borivli (West). The Petitioners state that the other queries which have been submitted by the Petitioner No. 1 have been diverted to the Superintendent of Gardens. The Petitioners state that along with the said information, a Notice has been supplied to the Petitioners. As per the said Notice the Corporation has invited proposal from the registered organization to take garden Plot i.e. Final Plot No. 128 on adoption basis for its maintenance and development but in the said Notice the area plot has been reduced from 25,395.06 to 23,895.06 square meters. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "Z" is the copy of the said Notice dated 8.6.2005.

31. The Petitioners state that subsequently the Superintendent of Gardens has also supplied few of the information and as per the said information M/s. Poinsur Gymkhana has been selected to give the said plot to them on adoption basis. As per the said information Agreement is not yet executed between the Municipal Corporation and M/s. Poinsur Gymkhana. As per the said information, no fees can be charged without the sanction of the Competent Authority and timings will be as per the need of the locality. It is further mentioned in the said information that only garden amenities are allowed to be provided in the said plot. The Petitioners state that as per the said information no permission has been granted to the Respondent No. 5 to collect the membership Fees from the General Public. The Petitioners state that various other relevant queries have been refused to be answered by the concerned authorities which is absolutely illegal.

32. The Petitioners state that the Petitioners made a question as to why the Tender is not published in the Newspaper. The said question was avoided by the concerned authorities and not replied. In the said application there was a question that if the plot is reserved for garden how recreation and amusement park and recreation are allowed. The said question is avoided by the concerned authorities stating that the said information does not fit into the information as defined in the RTI Act. The Petitioners state that similarly a question why sponsor is constructing recreation facilities has been avoided. The question that when the betterment charges are already collected from the plot holders and developers why the Municipal Corporation cannot develop the said plot of land has also been avoided.

33. The Petitioners state that from the above mentioned facts that the relevant information though available with the Municipal Corporation has not been supplied by the concerned authorities and the concerned authorities have illegally avoided to reply the said queries and supply the information it is clear that the Officers of the Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 are acting in collusion with Respondents Nos. 4, 5 and 6 and 8 and in order to support the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 they have violated even the legal rights provided to the Petitioners to obtain relevant information.

The Petitioners state that the Superintendent of Gardens supplied certain information required by the Petitioners. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "AA" is a copy of the said information supplied by the Superintendent of Gardens dated 26.5.2006.

The Petitioners state that along with the said information the Superintendent of Gardens has supplied the copies of the Application made by the alleged various organizations. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "BB" is the copy of the Application made by Yuvak Mandal. Exhibit "BB-1" is copy of receipt issued by Yuvak Mandal which mentions Respondent No.6 as Founder. Exhibit "BB-2" is English translation of Exhibit BB-1. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "CC" is the copy of the Application made by Civic Park Federation dated 16.6.2005. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "DD" is the copy of the Application made by Borivli TPS Civic Federation dated 23.3.2005. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "EE" is the copy of the application made by Shantabai Jairam Mhatre Charitable Trust dated 23rd June, 2005.

The Petitioners state that similarly various other organizations have made application for allotment of the said plot on adoption basis. The Petitioners state that surprisingly most of the organizations who have made application are either being run by Shri Gopal Shetty or supported by him or the members and office bearers who are members and office bearers of Poinsur Gymkhana and also members and office bearers of other organization who have made application and/or the office bearers of the other organizations who have applied are members of Bharatiya Janta Party and Shiv Sena who are supporting each other and no other independent organization have made application for the reason that no advertisement was issued in any of the Newspapers as required under the various circulars for giving the plot on adoption basis for maintenance and development.

The Petitioners state that through his influence Mr. Gopal Shetty as Ex-Deputy Mayor of the Municipal Corporation, sitting MLA and Corporator has made the Officers of the Bombay Municipal Corporation to put up the said Notice secretly on the Notice Board without giving any publicity to the same and the dummy applications has been made by the people from his own group due to which no other independent organization genuinely interested in developing and maintaining the garden has been able to apply for adoption of the said plot reserved for garden. The Petitioners state that the said Act of the Corporation under the influence and in collusion with Gopal Shetty is absolutely illegal. The Petitioners state that the Superintendent of Gardens has also supplied information to the Petitioner No. 1 on 27.4.2006, Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "FF" is the copy of the information supplied by the Superintendent of Gardens dated 27.4.2006.

38. The Petitioners state that as per the said information no tender has been called and no permission is allowed to issue Life Membership. As per the said information the construction of the compound wall of the said ground has been carried out by spending Rs. 13,55,000/- by the Municipal Corporation. The Petitioners state that if the Municipal Corporation has spent such huge amount for constructing the compound wall by utilizing the public money, the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 cannot be allowed to utilize the said plot for their own commercial benefit. The Petitioners state that from the Application which has been allegedly made by various organizations it is clear that the said applications are dummy applications and has been made by a single person just to show that the procedure for allotting the said plot on adoption basis has been followed.

39. The Petitioners state that as it is clear from the information supplied by the Corporation that no Agreement has been executed till date between the Municipal Corporation and the Respondent No. 5 even then Respondent No. 5 has carried out unauthorized construction on the said plot. The Petitioners state that the terms and conditions for giving the said plot to the Respondent No. 5 has not yet been decided by the Municipal Corporation and the Respondent No. 5 has carried out the construction on the said plot and not only that the Respondent No. 5 has collected huge amount as life membership fees from the General Public and is collecting entry fees and fees for utilizing various facilities from the general public which is absolutely illegal. The Petitioners state that from the said act of the Respondents, the collusion and influence of Respondent No. 6 is very much clear and it is also clear from the said act that no legal procedure as prescribed under the law and various circulars have been followed for allotting the said plot which is reserved for garden. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "GG" is the copy of the information supplied by the Assistant Engineer Maintenance on 15.4.2006. As per the said information the amount spent for construction of the compound wall is Rs. 8,76,481/- The Petitioners state that it appears that the officers of the Municipal Corporation are not supplying correct information in respect of the said Final Plot No. 128 as in the information dated 27.4.2006 it is stated that the amount for constructing the compound wall is Rs. 13,55,000/- and in the information dated 15.4.2006 it is stated that the expenditure was Rs. 8,76,481/-. The above said information are contradictory in themselves and it seems that the Corporation is hiding the correct information relating to the said plot due to the influence and pressure from the Respondents No. 6.
40. The Petitioners state that lay out plan which has been submitted by the Respondent No. 5 for developing and maintaining the said garden is not at all a lay out for garden as prescribed under the rules and regulations therefore it was absolutely illegal on the part of the Municipal Corporation to approve the lay out and allow the Respondents Nos. 4,5,6 and 8 to carry out the construction as per the said lay out which is not for garden. Petitioners state that even the applications which are made by alleged various organizations mention the said plot as P.G./R.G. which clearly discloses that the Respondent No5 never intended to adopt and develop the said plot as garden and therefore the corporation should not have allotted the said plot to Respondent No5.

41. The Petitioners state that the Assistant Commissioner "R" Central Ward has supplied information dated 24.6.2005 in which it is mentioned that the work of development of Final Plot No. 128 is being carried out by the Municipal Corporation departmentally with voluntary participation of the local residents. It is further mentioned that since there is no budget provisions made so far and as work is being carried out departmentally with the voluntary participation of local residents the funds are not yet allocated. It is further mentioned that however an amount of Rs. 10,55,000/- is incurred during the year 2004-2005 for the construction of compound wall allowing the boundary of the said plot. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "HH" is the copy of the said information dated 24.6.2005. The Petitioners state that it is clear from the various information supplied, that the Municipal Corporation is hiding the information from the General Public and is not willing to disclose the illegal activities of the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 in developing the said plot and the intention of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 is to exploit the same commercially.

42. The Petitioners state that in order to misguide the general public the Respondent No. 5 is publishing false reports in the newspapers stating that the said plot was used as dumping ground and therefore the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 are developing the said plot with recreation and amusement facilities. The Petitioners state that there was a huge pond on the said plot duly maintained by the residents of the said locality and the same was used by the residents for the purpose of immersion of Ganesh Idols and for performing religious rituals. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "II" are photographs showing the pond as it existed.

43. The Petitioners state there were huge trees and plants also on the said plot of land which has been cut, destroyed and removed by the Respondents Nos. 4,5,6 and 8 in order to develop the said plot. The Petitioners state that the said act of Respondents Nos. 4,5,6 and 8 in cutting the trees and plants is against the laws relating to the protection of environment and if the Respondents have cut the trees and plants they should have immediately made fresh plantation on the plot of land and ought to have developed the same only as garden.

44. The Petitioners state that there are two schools named St. Anne's High School and M. K. School attached to the said plot and therefore the residents of the said locality and the children require the said plot for garden with free entry.

45. The Petitioners state that till last year the said existing pond on the said plot was used by the residents for immersing Ganpati Idols and the Borivli Police Station has maintained record that last year almost 250 to 300 Ganpati idols were immersed in the said pond.

46. The Petitioners state that the Respondent No. 5 appears to be a trust registered with the Charity Commissioner and they are not entitled to collect money from the General Public as membership for using the said plot reserved for garden. The Petitioners state that it is apparent from the activities carried out by the Respondent No 5 that they are not acting as Public Trust and in accordance with the aims and objects of the said trust on the contrary they are acting with profit motive and in order to give benefit to the office bearers of the Respondent No. 5.

47. The Petitioners state that the Respondent No. 5 is charging entry fee of Rs. 2/- boating fee Rs. 15/- Dashing Car fee Rs. 10/- and for children's play Rs. 10/- and similarly other fees from the general public. The Petitioners state that similarly the Respondent No. 5 have planned to prescribe various fees for amphitheatre, T.V. room and other facilities. The most surprising aspect is that Respondent No. 5 has provided a Food Court on the said plot. The Petitioners state that the collusion between the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 is clear from the fact that even in the information supplied under the Right to Information Act when the lay out was supplied they placed a strip at the bottom of the lay out plan in order to suppress material information from the Petitioners and General public. The Petitioners state that through reliable sources the Petitioners have learnt that the said plan bears the endorsement of the MLA Mr. Gopal Shetty so that the same may be sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation and the officers of the Municipal Corporation has not bothered to see whether the same is in accordance with the rules and regulations or not. The Petitioners state that though from the said lay out plan it is apparent that the Respondent No. 5 is not developing the said plot as garden, the said plan has been approved and sanctioned by the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

48. The Petitioners state that since the Respondent No. 5 in spite of developing and maintaining the said plot along with pond and trees have entirely removed the soil, destroyed the existing pond and trees and plants existing on the said plot, varieties of fish in the said pond have died, tortoise and snakes have been killed lotus and aqua plants have been destroyed , varieties of birds have disappeared and Respondent No. 5 instead of reinstating environmental atmosphere on the said plot has changed the same into recreation and amusement park with modern machine facilities has violated laws relating to provisions of environment.

49. The Petitioners state that since the Respondents Nos. 1 to 8 have committed illegalities, in developing the said plot of land reserved for garden, Respondents Nos. 1 to 8 have violated the laws relating to protection of Environment Act and the acts of Respondents Nos. 4,5,6 and 8 as mentioned hereinabove are absolutely illegal, against the principles of natural justice and the various activities on the said plot by Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 in collusion with Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are against the interest of the general public the petitioners have filed the present petition.

50. The Petitioners state that though as per D.C. Rules the plots reserved for various purposes by the Municipal Corporation should be developed as provided under the Development Control Regulations the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 under the influence of Corporators, MLAs and MPs in order to give benefit to them by allegedly adopting plots reserved for garden, play ground, school, recreation etc. in order to over ride the provisions of law are issuing circulars which are against the existing provisions of law under Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay 1991 and Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,MRTP ACT and as such the said Circulars are illegal, invalid and ultra vires to the said acts and Development Control Regulations. The Petitioners therefore state that the said Circulars dated 8th January, 2001 and 18th August, 2001 are illegal, invalid and ultra vires and the said Circulars should be quashed and set aside. The Petitioners state that since various Petitions have been filed time and again in this Hon'ble Court and the plots reserved for various purposes are frequently allotted to the people relating to various political parties only through the involvement of Corporators, MLAs and politicians and the Corporators and MLA's are commercially exploiting the said plots depriving the General Public from using the same for the purposes for which the said plots are reserved, and therefore it is just, proper, necessary and in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the said Circular dated 8th January, 2001 bearing No. DYCHE (PI Cell) issued by the Deputy Chairman Engineer (PI Cell) which is hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "W" and Circular dated 18th August, 2001 bearing NO. DYCHE(PI Cell)/5625 of 08/02, hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "X" The Petitioners state that similarly the Circular dated 21.4.2002 which is hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "JJ" is also illegal invalid and ultra vires to the provisions of Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai 1991 and Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The Petitioners are therefore filing the present Petition as Public Interest Litigation on the following amongst other grounds:

a) The Petitioners state that the said F.P. No. 128 is reserved for garden and as per the Rules and Regulations the same cannot be used and developed for any other purpose.

The Respondent No. 5 has carried out illegal and unauthorized construction on the said plot in violation of the existing rules and regulations, under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, Development Control Regulations, and the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act.

c) The Respondent No. 5 is developing the said plot and has carried out illegal and unauthorized construction on the said plot by constructing the various amusement and other facilities as mentioned hereinabove.

d) The Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have not supplied the true and correct information to the Petitioners as per the Right to Information Act and have avoided to supply the true and correct information in respect of the Final Plot No 128 and the construction being carried out on the said plot by the Respondent No. 5.

e) The Respondent No. 6 who is sitting MLA and sitting Corporator and Ex-Deputy Mayor has got various reservation plots allotted from the Corporation in favour of various organizations founded and/or being run by him and is exploiting the said various plots commercially and similarly he has got Final Plot No. 128 also issued in favour of Respondent No5 and is exploiting the same commercially.

The Respondent No. 5 organization is being run by Respondent No. 6 and various other persons connected to political party i.e. Bharatiya Janta Party and the said organization is being run with profit motive.

g) The Respondent No. 5 Organization is based in "R" South Ward and therefore the said organization cannot be allowed to develop and maintain Final Plot No. 128 which is situated in "R" Central Ward.

h) The Respondent No. 5 has illegally and unauthorisedly colleted huge amount from the General Public in the name of constructing a Statue of Veer Savarkar on the said plot, by subscribing Life Membership, by charging entrance fee and various fees and donations for utilizing various facilities on the said plot.

i) The Respondent No. 5 as organization cannot make the General Public to subscribe for Life Membership, pay donations and fees for utilizing the facility on the said plot.

j) The Respondent No. 5 cannot carry out construction of the facilities like boating lake, amphitheatre, skating ring, mini train track, toilet blocks and food court etc. and the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 can not sanction construction of the said amusement facilities on the said plot reserved for garden.

k) The Respondent No. 5 has carried out the above mentioned construction and has collected huge donations from the General Public even though there is no Agreement still executed between the Bombay Municipal Corporation. The Respondent No. 4,5,6 and 8 have collected huge amounts from the General Public by cheating, misguiding and misrepresenting the general public which is absolutely illegal.

l) The Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 are also using the said plot for advertisement of their political party i.e. Bharatiya Janta Party which is against the law and Rules and Regulations for development and maintenance of plot reserved for General Public.

m) The Respondents Nos.1 to 3 did not take any action and did not cancel the allotment made to Respondent No. 5 despite the said illegal activities of the Respondents Nos. 4 to 8 have been widely reported in various newspapers and the said illegal activities are well within the knowledge of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

n) The Respondent No. 9 is well aware of the said illegal activities of the Respondent No. 5 but did not take any action against the Respondent No. 5 the Respondent No. 9 ought to have cancelled the Registration of the Respondent No. 5 as Public Charitable Trust as the Respondent No. 5 is involved into illegal activities and cheating the General Public and is using the money collected from the General Public not for charitable purposes but for the illegal purposes as mentioned hereinabove.

o) The Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 did not follow the procedure under the law i.e. to call for tender by giving advertisement in the Newspapers from the genuine organizations who are interested in developing and maintaining the said plot as garden.

p) Various other gardens developed and maintained by the genuine organization like Tata, Mahindra and other organizations do not charge any entry fees or membership fees as is being charged by the Respondent No. 5 which is absolutely illegal.

q) The Respondent No. 5 while carrying out the construction on the said plot has violated the terms and conditions of the Model Agreement prescribed by the Municipal Corporation for allotment of the plots reserved for garden, play ground and recreation etc on adoption basis.

r) The said plot has been allotted to the Respondent No. 5 which is founded by Respondent No. 6 and is being run by Respondent No.6 under the influence of the Respondent No. 6.

s) Respondent No. 6 has got the said plot allotted from the Respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 by misusing his status as Ex-Deputy Mayor, his status as Sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly and as a sitting Corporator.

t) The Application which has been allegedly submitted for getting the said plot on adoption basis by various alleged organization are dummy applications made by members from the group of Respondent No. 6 himself.

u) The Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 did not give any publicity for adoption of the said plot as required under the guidelines, rules and regulations for allotting the plots reserved for public purpose.

v) The Respondent No. 10 has not taken any action for the illegal activities, cheating, breach of trust and misrepresentation made by the Respondents Nos. 4,5,6 and 8 to the Public, cutting destroying the trees, plants etc. on the said plot though the said facts have been widely reported in various newspapers and are well within the knowledge of the Respondent No10.

w) The residents in the said locality require the said plot for the purpose of garden and therefore the said plot should be developed only as a garden.

x) The act of the Respondent No. 5 in destroying the existing pond, cutting existing trees and plants and killing fish, snakes tortoise etc. amounts to violation of laws relating to protection of wild life, animals and environment.

51. In the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove it is just proper, necessary and in the interest of justice that the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 4,5,6 and 8 be directed to demolish and remove the construction carried out by the Respondent No. 5 on the said Final Plot no. 128. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents nos. 1, 2 and 3 to cancel the allotment of the said Final Plot No. 128 made in favor of Respondent No. 5 and not execute any Agreement in favour of Respondent no. 5. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4, 5, 6 and 8 to refund the amounts collected from the General Public as membership fees, entry fees and/or as donations in respect of the facilities and/or constructions on the Final Plot No. 128. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to issue tenders and advertisements in the newspapers and to allot the said Final Plot No. 128 on adoption basis for developing and maintaining garden on the said plot. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 9 to carry out inquiry into the illegal activities, affairs and illegally collecting membership fees and donations from general public by the Respondent No. 5 and cancel the Registration of the Respondent No. 5. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents No. 10 to lodge F.I.R. against the office bearers of Respondent No. 5 and the Respondent No.4,6,and 8 for committing offences of cheating, misrepresentation, misappropriation of funds, cutting trees, plants and destroying wild life on the said Final Plot No. 128. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the circulars dated 8th January, 2001 bearing No.Dy.Ch.Eng.(P.I. Cell)/1948 issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer (PI Cell) and Circular dated 18th August, 2001 bearing NO. Dy.Ch.Eng.(PI Cell)/5625 of 08/02. That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 11 to frame detailed guidelines for allotment of the plots reserved for Garden/P.G./R.G. etc. to the organizations for maintaining and developing the said plots on adoption basis.

52. The Petitioners state that if the reliefs as prayed in the Petition are not granted irreparable loss, harm and injury will be caused to the general public of the said locality and to the Petitioners on the other hand if the relief as prayed in the Petition are granted no loss, harm and injury will be caused to the Respondents.

53. There is no other alternative efficacious remedy available to the Petitioners and reliefs as prayed for if granted will be just, complete and effective.

54. The Petitioners are residing in Mumbai, the Respondents are residing in Mumbai and carrying on business in Mumbai and have their offices in Mumbai. The subject plot is situated in Mumbai and the illegal and unauthorized activities complained of are carried out in Mumbai and therefore this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide this Petition.

55. The Petitioner has paid fixed court fee of
Rs. 250/-

56. The Petitioners will rely on documents a list whereof is hereto annexed.
The Petitioners therefore pray :-
that this Hon'ble court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and/or any other writ or direction directing the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to produce all the records pertaining to the allotment of the said Final Plot No. 128 TPS III, Borivli (West) Mumbai-400092 reserved for garden in favour of Respondent No.5.

that this Hon'ble court be pleased to direct the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 4,5,6 and 8 to forthwith demolish and remove the construction carried out by the Respondent No. 5 on the said Final Plot No. 128 TPS III, Borivli (West) Mumbai-400092.

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to forthwith cancel the allotment of the said plot i.e. Final Plot No. 128 TPS III, Borivli (West) Mumbai-400092. made in favour of Respondent No. 5 and not to execute any Agreement in favour of Respondent no. 5.

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.4,5,6,and 8 to forthwith refund the amounts collected from the General Public as membership fees, entry fees and/or as donations collected in respect of the said plot i.e. Final Plot No. 128 TPS III, Borivli (West) Mumbai-400092 to the General public or deposit the same in this Hon'ble court and submit report to that effect before this Hon'ble court.

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to issue tenders and advertisements in the newspapers and allot the said plot i.e. Final Plot No. 128 TPS III, Borivli (West) Mumbai-400092. on adoption basis for developing and maintaining garden on the said Plot.

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 9 to carry out inquiry into the illegal activities and affairs of the Respondent No. 5 i.e. collecting membership fees, entry fees, running commercial activities, and using the amounts collected for the purposes not mentioned in the trust deed and cancel the Registration of the Respondent No. 5.

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent No. 10 to lodge F.I.R. against the office bearers of Respondent No. 5 and the Respondent 4,6, and 8 for committing offences of cheating, misrepresentation, misappropriation of funds, cutting trees, plants and destroying wild life on the Final Plot No. 128 TPS III, Borivli (West) Mumbai-400092.

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the circulars dated 8th January, 2001 bearing No.Dy.Ch.Eng.(P.I. Cell)/1948 issued by the Deputy Chief Engineer (PI Cell), Circular dated 18th August, 2001 bearing NO. Dy.Ch.Eng.(PI Cell) of 08/02 and Circular dated 21-4-2002 bearing No. Dy.Ch.Eng.(PI Cell)/5025 of 08-05-2002.

That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondents Nos. No. 1, 2 and 11 to frame detailed guidelines for allotment of the plots reserved for Garden/P.G./R.G.etc. to the organizations for maintaining and developing the said plots on adoption basis.

For ad-interim and interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (g).

That the costs of the Petition be provided for;

For such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2.
Advocates for the Petitioners Petitioners

V E R I F I C A T I O N

I, Smt. Meera Sadanand Kamath the Petitioner No. 1 abovenamed aged about 60 years residing at Flat No. 2 Ruchi Co-operative Housing Society, Chikoo Wadi Road, Shimpoli, Borivli (West), Mumbai - 400 092 do hereby solemnly declare and state that what is stated in paragraphs 1 to 51 is true to my own knowledge and what is stated in remaining paragraphs 52 to 56 is stated on information which I believe to be true.

Solemnly declared at Bombay )
This day of July 2006 )
Before me

Advocates for the Petitioners

For M/s Legal Vision

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. OF 2006

1. Smt. Meera Sadanand Kamath )
aged about 60 years residing at Flat)
No. 2, Ruchi Co-operative Housing )
Society, Chikoo Wadi Road, Shimpoli)
Borivli (West), Mumbai - 400 092 )

2. Subodh Shripad Nageshkar )
aged about 52 years residing at )
Block No. 4, Borivli Vijaydeep Vijayawadi)
Vasantrao Chogle Marg, Babhai )
Borivli (West), Mumbai 400 092 ) … Petitioners
V/s
1.Municipal Commissioner )
Municipal Corporation of Greater )
Bombay, a Statutory Body formed )
And established under the Mumbai )
Municipal Corporation Act 1888 )
Having its office at Municipal Cor- )
poration Building, Mahapalika Marg,)
Opposite, C.S.T. Mumbai - 400 001)