IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF

BOMBAY (CIVIL ORIGINAL

JURISDICTION) PUBLIC
INTEREST LITIGATION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION(PIL) No. OF 2020

RAM SHAM MOHAN

……….Petitioner
Versus

STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND Ors

……. RESPONDENT

INDEX

SR DATE Exh PARTICULAR PAGE

NO No
1. Porforma
2 Synopsis
3 Petition
4 Copy of Guideliness
issued by
Government of
India
5 Interim Relief
6 Copy of Letter
Complaint

7 Photo Graph of
construction Site

1
 9 Copy of Relevant
Section of Article
10 Advocates
Certificate
11 Verification
12 Affidavit in support
13 Memorandum of
address
14 Vakalatnama
15 List of Documents

DATE:
PLACE: ADVOCATE OF PETITIONER

PETITIONER

2
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
BOMBAY (CIVIL ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION) PUBLIC
INTEREST LITIGATION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION(PIL) No. OF 2020

RAM SHAM MOHAN

……….Petitioner
Versus

STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND Ors

……. RESPONDENT

SYNOPHSIS

The Petitioners are Ecologists , working for the

environment and sustainable development for the past
eleven years. A petitioner is currently assisting with the
development of Mira Road. The town has a water body
and lush green environment, making it an ideal place to
live. Recently, illegal development has increased in the
surrounding areas; as a consequence, trees have been cut
down frequently; a new cinema is being constructed on a
water body, posing a threat to society and marine life.

DATES AND EVENTS

SR DATE EXH PARTICULAR PAGE

NO
1 20.2.11 Mira bhayander

3
 Sustainable
Development
Association
formation
2 23.5.15 Incorporation Of JAI
INFRA
3 22.4.19 JOINT VENTURE
Of JAI And PINK A
4 22.6.19 EC For Construction
From MPCB
5 28.6.19 Consent Of
Establishment For
Cinema Hall
6 12.9.19 Commence Of
Construction On
Water Body
7 2.10.19 Complaint letter to
MBMC
8 10.10.19 Complaint NC to
Navghar Police on
illegal construction
9 20.3.20 PIL in Highcourt

POINTS TO BE URGED

1. Interim Relief and stop to on going construction of

cinema
2. Revoke EC and other license of development on water
body
3. Investigation on Authorities who issued license of
development
4. Relook on process of Assessment for issuing
Development Rights

4
LIST OF ACTS

1. Environment Protection ACT

2. Companies Act 1956
3. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1974
4. The Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules,
2017
5. The Town and Country Planning Act

DATE:
PLACE: ADVOCATE OF PETITIONER

PETITIONER

5
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF
BOMBAY (CIVIL ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION) PUBLIC
INTEREST LITIGATION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION(PIL) No. OF 2020

Mr. RAM MOHAN son of SHAM MOHAN )

Age: 54yrs, Occup: CAFÉ OWNER )
Indian Inhabitant, Hindu, )
Reg. No. RC2378B6 )
Having CAFÉ :BhukkAd )
70, Palli Hills,Mira Road,THANE -401107 )
Mobile No:+91 8844338812 )
EMAIL ID:thebhukkad@gmail.com )
…… PETITIONER
VERSUS

State of Maharashtra Pollution

Department )
(At the instance of the Senior Inspector of
MPCB Mira Road, )
Having office at: Navi Mumbai )
Navi Mumbai – 400703. )

…… RESPONDENT 1
MiraBhayander Municipal Corporation
Department )

6
 Having Office: Mira Road )
THANE – 401107 )
…… RESPONDENT 2
JAI INFRA PVT LTD
)
Having Office: KANKIA,Mira Road
)
THANE – 401107
)
…… RESPONDENT 3
PINKS A PVT LTD
)
Having Office: KANKIA,Mira Road
)
THANE – 401107
)
…… RESPONDENT 3

With
I.A. NO..............................................................................OF 2020
An Application for permission to Appear and Argue In
Person With
I.A. NO..............................................................................OF 2020
An Application for exemption from filing duly Affirmed
Affidavit

IN THE MATTER OF: -

7
 IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE
226 OF CONSTITUTION OF
INDIA.
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
COMPLAINT DATED 2.10.19
LODGED WITH THE OFFICE
OF THE MIRA BHAYANDER
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
MIRA ROAD EAST,THANE
AGAINST ILLEGAL CINEMA
CONSTRUCTION

AND
IN THE MATTER OF
INFREGIMENT OF Articles 14, 21, 48A and 51A (g) of the
Constitution of India

AND
IN THE MATTER OF INFREGIMENT OF
ENVIRONEMNT PROTECTION ACT FOR
DEVELOPEMENT
AND

IN THE MATTER OF
ILLEGAL ATTEMPT BY
RESPONDENTS (1) &
(2) FOR
CONSTRUCTING A CINEMA BUILDING

8
 BY DEMOLISHING ONE
LARGE WATER-BODY
LOCATED IN THE IN
BREACH OF DRAFT
OUTLINE/DEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR CONCERNED AREA.

SYNOPSIS

Petitioner above-named respectfully shewoth:

1. The petitioners humbly assert that Article 226 of the

Constitution of Indica allows writ petitions to be filed.
There are Four main points to this argument. A
substantial question of law is involved in this matter
involving a question of general public importance.
Second, the petitioners have locus standi because they
have a bona fide interest. Thirdly, the citizens'
Fundamental Rights have been violated under Part III
of Indiana constitution. Furthermore, the petitioners
contend that the violation of citizens' Fundamental
Rights, as stated in the third point, is a clear
infringement upon the right of equality enshrined in
the Indian Constitution. Fourthly, the matter involves
a matter of great public importance and therefore
warrants judicial intervention. The preservation of the
environment, sustainable development, and protection

9
 of fundamental rights compels me to seek judicial
review of the said project.

2. The petitioner and Indian citizen and OWNER of

BHUKKAD CAFÉ & an ECOLOGIST an
incorporated Association of persons formed
on.20.2.11 by important citizens of Mira Road
Sustainable Development (MRSD) team. in its
general meeting held at 22.12.10 .inter alias, of
protecting the ecology and environment of the country
with special reference, preserving national heritage
buildings and architectures in Mira Road as well as
for upholding the Constitutional Legal Rights of
Indian Citizens, specially persons of economically
weaker section of society and residing within the
municipal area of MIRA ROAD The petitioner begs
leave to refer to and rely on the aims and objects of
the said MRSD at the time of hearing, if compulsory.

3. The petitioner being Ecologist with specialized

knowledge in ecology and environment, has extensive
experience in researching and advocating for the
preservation of natural habitats and species. He is also
knowledgeable about the impacts of climate change

10
 on the environment. He is highly-qualified to provide
expert witness testimony on issues related to ecology
and the environment.

4. That the Respondent(s) is/are an instrumentality of the

State, hence State within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution of India. Respondent 3 JAI INFRA
PVT LTD , is a construction company incorporated
under the Companies Act 1956 with its registered
office at Mira Road. And Respondent 4 is Rolling
Mill company located in Mira Road. Joint venture of
these two companies was formed on 22.4.19

5. The Consent of Establishment was received on

28.6.19 and Environment clearance was received on
22.6.19

6. The EC was received without a proper Environment

impact assessment, EC was give on a water body
without through investigation.

7. Construction commence for cinema on 12.9.19 ,

Which was oppesed by local residents as the
properties mangroves were cut on large scale.

11
8. Complaint letter was submitted to Mira Bhayander
Municipal corporation to stop development on 2.10.19
and a re-investigation was requested

9. 10.10.19 NC was filled against the companies for

illegal construction , and Force used on resident
during one of the oppose rally.

10.The instant application is being instituted by

petitioner for and on behalf of the MRSD and
representing the weaker sections of society residing
within the municipal area of Mira Road seeking writ
per mandamus on the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2
ordering them to desist from altering or destroying the
environment and ecological balance of land
concerning a large water-body located in Kankia Road
under the jurisdiction of the Thane for purpose of
building a cinema building at the instance of
Respondent No. 2 to be financed by the Respondent
No. 1 or for any other purpose which might cause any
such destruction of ecology and environment.

11.The petitioner submits if such constructions, is made

would cause destruction to ecology and environment

12
 of municipal area and specially the south western part
of the Mira Road, but it will also against draft outline
of Development Plan of the Mira Bhayander prepared
for the Development under the MBMC and the said
plan restricts inter alia, filling up of any water-body
covering an area beyond 200 sq. m. the petitioner begs
leave to refer to a copy of the said draft plan, at the
time of hearing.

12. The land containing such water-body is owned by the

Commissioners of Mira Bhayander Municipal
corporation for converting the same into a green park
with swimming pool enclosed to it for health /welfare
of residents and rate payers of municipal area related
but presently used by rearing office and which is
being used by tenanting out to different agencies for
rearing office for getting necessary money for
ultimate object of laying park and building up the
swimming pool for which funds have been laid
separately.

13. By passing of time, almost the whole area

surrounding the said water-body has been
constructing school building besides residential

13
 apartments with market place. water-body being the
only water-body in the area.

14. The petitioner knowing that the Commissioners of

the Municipality concerned are now using various
ways to alter the land use pattern of the said water-
body by filling up the same as also by demolishing the
surroundings violating health/sanitation of the
residents of the area in gross breach of Constitutional
Rights of the people of the area and the students the
educational institution close by as also in breach of
the Town and Country (Planning and Development)
rules and the Environment Protection Act 1986.

15. The Government has also moved in protecting wet-

lands and has published an approach paper concerning
it.

16. The State Government for preserving the wet-lands

has published a policy document.

17.The natural source of air, water and soil cannot be

utilized, if the utilization results in irreversible
damage to environment. There has been accelerated
degradation of the environment primarily on account

14
 of lack of effective enforcement of environmental
laws and non- compliance with statutory norms.

18.It has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that

the right to live is a fundamental right under Article
21 of the Constitution and it includes the right to
enjoyment of pollution free water and air for full
enjoyment of life. The definition of sustainable
development which was given more than three
decades back still holds goods. The phrase covers the
development that meets the need of the present
without compromising the availability of future
generation to meet their own needs. Sustainable
development means the type or extent of development
that can take place and which can be sustained by
nature / ecology with or without mitigation. In these
matters the required standards now is that the risk or
harm to the environment or to human health is to be
decided in public interest according to a reasonable
person test. Life, public health and ecology has
priority over unemployment and loss of revenue.

19.It is further contented by the learned counsel for the

applicant that this is a condition which is squarely

15
 covered by Hinchlal Tiwari Vs Kamla Devi 2001 AIR
SCW 2865 followed and quoted in Jagpal Singh Vs
State of M.P. (2011) 11 SCC
20.
21.396. It is authoritatively reiterated in Hinchlal Tiwari
and Jagpal Singh that land recorded as pond must not
be allotted to anybody for construction of a house or
any allied purpose. The court ordered the respondents
in the case of Hinchlal Tiwari and Jagpal Singh to
vacate the land they had illegally occupied after
taking away the material of the house. In another case
of MI Builders (P) Ltd. Vs Radheshyam Sahu (1999)
6 SCC 464 the Supreme Court ordered restoration of a
park after demolition of shopping complex
constructed at the cost of Rs.100 crores.
22.Both these judgments of Hinchlal Tiwari and Jagpal
Singh have been appreciated by a Division Bench of
the court in (2011) 2 MPLJ 618 Rinkesh Goyal Vs.
State of M.P. in which under similar circumstances
directions have been given that there should not be
any encroachment over the land of ponds, tanks and
lakes. Long period of encroachment is no defence and
does not give any equity. The cost of construction
done after destroying a pond is also immaterial.

16
23.While disposing the Original Application No. 325 of
2015 vide order dated 18.11.2020, this Tribunal,
while dealing with restoration of water bodies
observed as follows:
"The protection of water bodies not only add to
availability of water for different purposes, it also
contributes to recharge of ground and maintaining e-
flow in the rivers, is congenial to micro climate in
sub- watersheds as well as enhancing the natural
aesthetics. While the rain water harvesting is certainly
important, harvesting surplus water during excessive
rains from any areas of catchment needs to be
optimized by enhancing the capacity of the existing
ponds/water bodies, creation of water harvesting
structures in the sub- watersheds to the extent
possible, apart from setting up of additional water
bodies/water harvesting structures wherever viable,
utilizing available funds including under MGNREGA
and involving the community at large at every level.
Gram Panchayats can certainly play a significant role
in the matter. Once adequate capacity enhancement of
waterbodies takes place, excess flood/rain water can
be channelized by using appropriate water harvesting
techniques. This action needs to be coordinated by the

17
 District Magistrates in coordination with the
Department of Irrigation and Flood Control or other
concerned Departments such as Department of Rural
Development / Urban Development / Local Bodies /
Forests / Revenue etc. The District Magistrate may as
far as possible hold a meeting of all the stakeholders
for the purpose as per the District Environment Plan
or Watershed Plan within one month from today. The
District Magistrates may also ensure that as far as
possible atleast one pond/water body must be restored
in every village, apart from creation of any new
pond/water body."
24.The reliance has been placed by the learned counsel
on Susetha vs. State of Tamilnadu decided on
08.08.2006 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
Appeal (Civil) No. 3418 of 2006 (AIR 2006 SC
2893). The relevant portion are quoted below :
"Drawing our attention to a decision of the Division
Bench of the Madras High Court in L. Krishnan v.
State of Tamil Nadu, AIR (2005) Madras 311, it was
argued that the State Government was enjoined with a
duty to preserve the tank by taking all possible steps
both by way of preventive measures as well as

18
removal of unlawful encroachments and not to use the
same for commercial purpose."
"Concededly, the water bodies are required to be
retained. Such requirement is envisaged not only in
view of the fact that the right to water as also quality
life are envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India, but also in view of the fact that the same has
been recognized in Articles 47 and 48-A of the
Constitution of India. Article 51-A of the Constitution
of India furthermore makes a fundamental duty of
every citizen to protect and improve the natural
environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild
life. [See Animal and Environment Legal Defence
Fund v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1997) SC
1071; M.C. Mehta (Badkhal and Surajkund Lakes
Matter v. Union of India and Ors., [1997] 3 SCC 715
and Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and
Ors., [2006] 3 SCC "Concededly, the water bodies are
required to be retained. Such requirement is envisaged
not only in view of the fact that the right to water as
also quality life are envisaged under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India, but also in view of the fact that
the same has been recognized in Articles 47 and 48-A
of the Constitution of India. Article 51-A of the

19
 Constitution of India furthermore makes a
fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests,
lakes, rivers and wild life. [See Animal and
Environment Legal Defence Fund v. Union of India
and Ors., AIR (1997) SC 1071; M.C. Mehta (Badkhal
and Surajkund Lakes Matter v. Union of India and
Ors., [1997] 3 SCC 715 and Intellectuals Forum,
Tirupathi v. State of A.P. and Ors., [2006] 3 SCC
25.Maintenance of wetlands was highlighted by the
Calcutta High Court in People united for better living
in Calcutta - Public and Anr. v. State of West Bengal
and Ors., AIR (1993) Cal. 215, observing that the
wetland acts as a benefactor to the society.
26.Recently, in T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad (99) v.
Union of India and Ors., [2006] 5 SCC 47, this Court
again highlighted the importance of preservation of
natural lakes and in particular those which are
protected under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
27."The development of the doctrine of sustainable
development indeed is a welcome feature but while
emphasizing the need of ecological impact, a delicate
balance between it and the necessity for development
must be struck. Whereas it is not possible to ignore

20
 inter-generational interest, it is also not possible to
ignore the dire need which the society urgently
requires."
28.We find that the steps taken so far can hardly be held
to be adequate. As already noted, protection of water
bodies serves great public purpose and is essential for
protection of the environment. It helps not only
aesthetics but also water availability, aquatic life,
micro climate, recharge of ground water and
maintaining e-flow of the rivers. Under the Public
Trust Doctrine, the State has to act as trustee of the
water bodies to protect them for the public use and
enjoyment for current and future generations. We may
note the observations of the Hon„ble Supreme Court
on the subject which are as follows:
a. State of T.N. v. Hind Stone, (1981) 2 SCC 205, at
page 212:
“6. Rivers, Forests, Minerals and such other
resources constitute a nation„s natural wealth. These
resources are not to be frittered away and exhausted
by any one generation. Every generation owes a duty
to all succeeding generations to develop and conserve
the natural resources of the nation in the best possible

21
 way. It is in the interest of mankind. It is in the
interest of the nation.”
b. Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496,
at page 500:
“13. It is important to notice that the material
resources of the community like forests, tanks, ponds,
hillock, mountain etc. are nature‟s bounty. They
maintain delicate ecological balance. They need to be
protected for a proper and healthy environment which
enables people to enjoy a quality life which is the
essence of the guaranteed right under Article 21 of
the Constitution.”
c.” As was observed by this Court in M.C. Mehta v.
Kamal Nath our legal system based on English
common law includes the public trust doctrine as part
of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all
natural resources which are by nature meant for
public use and enjoyment. The public at large is the
beneficiary of the seashore, running waters, air,
forests and ecologically fragile lands. The State as a
trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural
resources. These resources meant for public use
cannot be converted into private ownership.”

22
 d. Jitendra Singh v. Ministry of Environment & Ors.,
2019 SCC Online 1510 pr 20 “Waterbodies,
specifically, are an important source of fishery and
much needed potable water. Many areas of this
country perennially face a water crisis and access to
drinking water is woefully inadequate for most
Indians. Allowing such invaluable community
resources to be taken over by a few is hence grossly
illegal."”

29. That the Respondent No. 1 being a company is

engaged in manufacturing iron rods with a Rolling
Mill at Mira Road in the district of Thane and is not
conversant to cinema trade but to increase its income
have agreed to Respondent No. 2 in providing finance
for starting cinema. The Respondent No. 2 is a false
firm set up by Respondent No. 1 for evading the
complexes e Companies Act.

30. The wet-land stated in the Schedule under serves the

cause of environment in several ways as stated it:

(a) Each water-body keeps the atmosphere cool by

absorbing heat. Water vapors also keep the

23
 surrounding area cool. It absorbs carbon dioxide
which is regularly discharged into the atmosphere.
(b) Wet-lands absorb dust particles discharged into the
atmosphere by various sources/elements.

31. That building a cinema building neighboring to

school in vicinity will endanger the education /health
of students and it is a co-educational institution.

32. Article 48A of the Constitution of India casts a duty

upon the respondents for protecting and improving the
environment and safeguarding the forest /wild life of
country and they have also duty to prevent any action
which is going to degrade the environment and
affecting the health /living conditions of the area and
to prevent demolition of the aforesaid water-body.

33. The petitioner, hence to initiate the President of

MRSD with its members, and on behalf the
citizens/residents of said municipal area for protecting
their rights as enshrined under Article 21 read with
Article 48A of the Constitution inasmuch as the
persons likely to be prejudiced /affected by aforesaid
action of the Municipality of Mira Road are so many
and scattered and moreover the damage that is going

24
 to be caused to them by the aforesaid action of the
municipal authority will be slow and gradual before
the same became great, tax payers /resident can not
move this Hon’ble court individually. The petitioner
and MRSD society under the member bear a duty
under enactments of Article 51A(g) of the
Constitution for filling action for protecting of
environment. 5lA(g) states that it will be the duty of
every citizen of India to improve and protect the
natural environment including several lakes and rivers
and wild life for to combined for living creatures, and
taking action for protecting of the aforesaid water-
body as the said municipal authority is bent upon
demolishing the water-body and has started urgent
steps for same, threats of destruction of the said
water-body having become real/apparent and nearby
the petitioner being President of MRSD with some
important citizens of Municipal area have also
corresponded several times to Chairman of
Municipality asking him not to, diminish/destroy the
water-body.
34. The concern shown by petitioner and other eminent
citizens of the area have failed to elicit any positive
response from the Municipality who are bent upon

25
 destroying the water-body by filling up the same in
breach of mandatory enactments and Government
circulars /instruction.
35. The petitioner fears that purported decision of
municipal authority if enforced would cause
demolition and destruction of ecological and
environmental balance in the impugned areas by
filling up the water-body and the impugned action
being arbitrary and in breach of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
36. Being aggrieved/dissatisfied with various
actions/threats of municipal authority the petitioner
initiate application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India on the following grounds.

(I) For the purported decision of the municipal

authority for filling the aforesaid water-body is to
cause great injuries to the ecology/balance of the town
and consequently would infringe the right of the
residents of area to a clean environment as given in
Article 21 of the Constitution and would thus be
violative of the fundamental rights of the life of the
residents of the area as guaranteed in Article 21 of the
Constitution.

26
 II) For building of cinema hall near to school and
residential area and refusing a green park/swimming
pool to residents would create educational /health
problems to students and residents.
37. The petitioner affirms that, he has not moved any
other application on alike cause of action before the
Hon'ble Court or any other Court of Law.
38. The petitioner states that it is clear that Municipal
Authority is readily filling up the aforesaid water-
body and unless restrained by stay order, the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as agents of the Municipality
would fill up the said water-body which will render
the instant application nullity.
39.The cause of action of this instant application
emerged outside the Ordinary Original Civil
Jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.
40. The petitioner having no other alternative and
effective remedy and the remedies prayed for
hereunder would give final and full relief to residents
of concerned area in whose behalf this application is
being moved.

27
 41. The petitioner having demanded justice vide
Annexure 1.to the petition, which justice has been
denied.
42. As stated hereinabove, this application is moved by
petitioner in public entrust for public good and not
serving any interest of any individual. If orders, as
prayed for hereunder, are not allowed the residents of
concerned area will sustained irreparable loss and
injury.
PRAYER:
That this application is being moved bona fide and in
the
interest of justice. In the premises, your petitioner
humbly prays Your Lordships for the following
orders:

(a) Writ in nature of mandamus instructing the

Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to alter land use water-
body known as Khadi located in Mira Road of the
Municipality of;
(b) Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent give suitable instructing to the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 requiring them to maintain the water-body
as mentioned above in its present nature and character.

28
 (c) An order or instructing on the respondent Nos. 1& 2
and every of them with their subordinates agents
restraining them from giving any sanction or permission
or to do any act or omission which would enable the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to disturb/diminish the said
water-body.
(d) An order or instruction on the respondent Nos. 1 and
2 instructing them to produce into this Hon'ble Court all
records concerning any decision which might have been
taken for building of cinema building so that justice may
be done by quashing the same;
(e) Rule nisi in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d)
above;
f) Rule be made complete;
(g) Interim order of stay restraining respondent Nos. 1/2
from taking action towards demolishing and/or
diminishing the water-body known as KHADI located at
Mira Road in any way whatsoever till this application
disposal;
(h) Ad interim order in terms of prayer
(g) above;
(i) And pass such other or order or orders as to Your
Lordships may deem proper and fit. And your petitioner,
as in duty bound, shall ever pray.

29
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE
APPLICANT AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER
PRAY.

FILED BY:

(________________) ( )
PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

DRAWN ON:
Drawn by:

New Delhi
Date:

VERIFICATION

I, Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN, OWNER of The

Bhukkad AGE: 54 yrs., Indian Inhabitant, Occup.: Business,

30
Having Cafe at 70, Palli Hills,Mira Road,THANE -401107
, do hereby solemnly declare that whatever is stated in the
foregoing paragraphs of this Petition from
para ___ to __ are true to my own knowledge and what is
stated in para ___ to ___ are based on information and belief
and legal submission which I believe the same to be true
and correct.

Solemnly declare at Mumbai. )

Dated this ___day of December. 2023 )

Petitioner

Identified by me,

Before me,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

31
 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2023
DIST.: MUMBAI

Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN

….... Petitioner
V/S.
THE MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD & ORS ……... Respondents

Affidavit of Petitioner in support of Writ Petition

I, Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN, OWNER of The

Bhukkad AGE: 54 yrs., Indian Inhabitant, Occup.:
Business, Having Cafe at 70, Palli Hills,Mira Road,THANE
-401107 , the Petitioner , above named do hereby state on
solemn affirmation, as under:-

1. I say that we have filed above writ petition against

respondents.
2. I say that contents of said writ are read over to me and
I am conversant with all facts mentioned in the
said writ. I say and submit that I have full knowledge as to
what has been written and prayed in the said complaint filed
by me before this Hon’ble Court.

32
3. I say that I am making this affidavit in support of my
writ filed against above person and to confirm that the
contents thereof are known to me and under full knowledge
I am filing the said writ.

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai )

On this ___day of DECEMBER, 2023 )

Petitioner

Identified and explained by me,

BEFORE ME,

SHRI S. S. DUBEY

Advocate for the Petitioner,

Off.: “1/A, Shiv Sadan,
Goraswadi,Mira Road
Thane-401107.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2023

DIST.: MUMBAI

33
Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN
….... Petitioner
V/S.
THE MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD & ORS ……... Respondents
MEMORANDUM OF PETITIONER’S REGISTERED
ADDRESS:
Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN,
OWNER of The Bhukkad AGE: 54 yrs.,
Indian Inhabitant, Occup.: Business, Having
Cafe at 70, Palli Hills,Mira Road,THANE -
401107
SHRI S. S. DUBEY,
Advocate for the Petitioner
5/A, Shiv Sadan, Goraswadi,
Mira Road Thane 401107
MOBILE : 09819515595

PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

34
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2023

DIST.: MUMBAI

Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN

….... Petitioner
V/S.
THE MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD & ORS ……... Respondents
LIST OF DOCUMENTS RELY UPON PETITIONER

Sr. Particulars
No.
List of documents

1 Photos
2 ANNEXURE P1
3 ANNEXURE P2
4 Guideliness

PETITIONER ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

35
 VAKALATNAMA
I am not a member of Maharashtra advocates
Welfare Fund & I have not affixed the
required stamp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. OF 2023
DIST.: MUMBAI

Mr. RAM SHAM MOHAN ….... Petitioner

V/S.
THE MAHARASHTRA POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD & ORS ……...
Respondents I / We the
undersigned do hereby appoint and retain SHRI
SANJAYDAN S. DUBEY B.COM, LL.B. ADVOCATE
to act and plead for me / us in the above matter and on
my / our behalf to conduct and prosecute ( or defend )
the same and all proceedings that may be taken in
respect of any application connected with the same or
any decree or order passed therein and application for
receive money on my / our behalf in the said matter and
in applications for review, and to represent me / us and
take all necessary steps on my / our behalf in the above
matter and also to compromise the above matter on
such terms and conditions as the said advocate (s) may

36
think just and proper in my / our interest. The said
Advocate (s) When he / they is / are unable to remain
present for any reasons will be entitled to give proxy to
any Advocate (s) of his / their choice. I / We agree to
rectify all acts done by the aforesaid Advocate (s) in
pursuance of this authority.
IN WITNESS WHERE OF I/We do hereunto set my/our
hand to these presents the contents of which have
been understood by me/us on this
………………………………Day of……………………
2023 Accepted subject to the terms of
the fees.
Accepted

SANJAYDAN S. GADHVI
B.COM.LL.B, ADVOCATE
OFFICE:-
4th Floor, Panchratna Complex,
Near Amber Cinema,
P. N. Marg,
Mira Road 40117
Mobile: 94262 27111
Email: sanjaydan@gadhvi.in

37
38