JUDGMENT

Deepak Verma, J.

1. How far whip of Public Interest Litigation can be stretched and used is the moot and foremost question to be answered in this Appeal, arising out of judgment and order dated 16/17th July, 2001 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in W.P. No. 925 of 1988 titled as Anil Tryambakarao Kokil (since dead) Vs. Municipal Council, Nanded and others. C.A.No.2619/02 .... (contd.)

2. Appellant herein - Pragati Mahila Mandal, Nanded is before us challenging the said judgment and order passed by Division Bench, whereby and whereunder allotment of a piece of plot bearing Survey No. 42 of Village Assadullabad (Maganpura), admeasuring 75'x 350' in its favour has been set aside and quashed as being illegal and void ab initio, with further direction to Respondent No. 1, Municipal Council, Nanded to take possession of the said plot together with building appurtenant thereto, within a period of eight weeks from the date of impugned judgment. Thumb nail sketch of the facts of the case is as under:

3. Appellant is a Charitable Trust duly registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950. On 14.10.1983, it made a request to Respondent No. 1 Municipal Council, Nanded (now Nanded Waghela City Municipal Corporation) for allotment of a plot, out of the lands belonging to it, for starting a school to provide education, especially for girls. Accordingly, in C.A.No.2619/02 .... (contd.) the year 1984, the Administrator, who was then holding the charge of the Municipal Council, vide Resolution dated 22.10.1984 allotted a plot admeasuring 75' x 350' bearing Survey No. 42 to the Appellant on a 60 years' lease.

4. It further contemplated that the applicable rental compensation shall be fixed on the basis of the rate to be worked out by the Assistant Town Planner, subject to compliance of the provisions of Section 92 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (for short 'The Act'). The Assistant Town Planner was also required to undertake the measurements and after fixing boundaries, the said piece of plot came to be handed over to the Appellant on 25.10.1984, after drawing a possession Panchanama. However, at that time, the nominal rental compensation could not be fixed as the State Government was yet to grant sanction for transfer of the land in favour of the Appellant, as contemplated under Section 92 of the Act.

5. Respondent No.1, the Municipal Council then in turn submitted a proposal to the Collector, seeking C.A.No.2619/02 .... (contd.) sanction of the State Government regarding allotment of the aforesaid plot in favour of the Appellant. The Assistant Town Planner by his communication dated 5.6.1986 informed Respondent No.1 that rental compensation for the subject plot for giving it on long lease of 60 years, would work out at Rs. 6,816/- per annum.

6. A representation was made by the Appellant for reduction of the rental to a reasonable sum, owing to it being a Charitable Trust, working mainly for the benefit of girls and women and it had no source of income to pay such rental compensation. On reconsideration of the matter, the rental was fixed at Rs. 11 per annum by the Divisional Commissioner, vide his order dated 12.11.1986, wherein sanction was granted under Section 92 of the Act, for allotment of the subject plot to the Appellant on a lease for 60 years. Thus, it was an ex-post facto sanction granted in favour of the Appellant, after the possession of the plot was already handed over to the Appellant.

7. It was this allotment of land in favour of the Appellant and also other allotments made by Respondent No.1 in favour of other allottees together C.A.No.2619/02 .... (contd.) with certain donations made by Respondent No.1, Municipal Council that were the subject matter of challenge in a consolidated writ petition filed by Anil Tryambakarao Kokil (since dead) in the nature of pro bono publico.

8. However, it ap