IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTIN

WRIT PETITION NO. 2116 OF 2005

Kirit Somaiya                                                                                     ..... Petitioner

            Versus        

State of Maharashtra and Ors.                                                        ..... Respondents

Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Ms. Madhavi Diwan instructed by M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General with Mr. K.R. Belosey, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 10.

Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. D.H. Mehta and

Mrs. Priti Purandare for Respondents No. 3 and 4.

Mr. R.M. Sawant for Respondent No. 6

Mr. B.A. Desai, Additional Solicitor General, with Ms. S.V. Bharucha for Respondent Nos. 7 and 11.

Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondent No. 8.

Mr. M.S. Delhvi instructed by Mr. M.V. Kini for Respondent No. 9.

CORAM : DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J. &

                  S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.

DATE     : OCTOBER 3, 2005.

1.                  After this Court passed a de4tailed order on 31st August, 2005, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board, Mumbai.  An additional affidavit has also been filed on behalf of Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board, Mumbai.  Further, an affidavit has been filed by the Under Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra.  Copies of these affidavits could not be given to the learned counsel appearing for different parties.

2.                  Similarly, an affidavit has been filed in Court on behalf of Bombay Municipal Corporation (for short, ‘B.M.C.’).  Copies of this affidavit have been handed over to the learned counsel appearing for different parties.  Affidavits have also been filed on behalf of respondents No. 7 and 9.

3.                  Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has drawn our attention to the maps published by the concerned respondents.  The length of Mithi River is about 13.75 Kilo Metres but in the map, at many places, it has been shown as ‘Nallah’.  The learned Advocate General appearing for the State and Mr. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the B.M.C., do not dispute this fact that, in fact, Mithi River is about 13.75 Kilo Metre long, but at some points, it is very narrow and gives the impression of Nallah.  Both the learned Advocate General and Mr. Singhvi submit that all efforts would be made to rejuvenate the entire river.  Because of paucity of time, the counsel appearing for different parties pray for a short adjournment.  We deem it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the parties to go through the affidavits and make submissions.

4.                  Mr. Singhvi and the learned Advocate General submit that no permission for any kind of development whatsoever shall be granted to anyone in contravention of law.

5.                  We direct the B.M.C. the Collector and other concerned public authorities to ensure that unauthorized encroachments be removed in accordance with law and also ensure meticulous compliance of our previous orders.

6.                  List this PIL again on 24th October, 2005, along with connected matters.

CHIEF JUSTICE

S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.