JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:-Rule. Mr. P.M. Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Dr. Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. R.G. Ketkar, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 9. Mr. S.S. Hardikar, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Mr. A.K. Beheti, learned Counsel, appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 8.

2. In the facts and circumstances and with the consent of learned Counsel, the matter was taken up for final hearing forthwith.

3. This petition is filed by the petitioner claiming to be pro bono publico for an appropriate writ direction or order ordering Pune Municipal Corporation, respondent No. 2 herein, to cancel sham and bogus lease executed by the Corporation in favour of respondent No. 6 by directing the corporation to issue tenders by calling competitive bids from all interested persons for granting lease for sports complex. Further reliefs have also been sought.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he is a citizen of India and Journalist by profession. He is Editor of weekly news publication "Bimb pratibimb". He is a resident of Pune City. He claims to be believing in protecting general public interest and in raising issues concerning society. The petitioner considers it to be his duty to prevent malpractices by public authorities for personal benefits and at the cost of public exchequer. According to him, since of the officials respondent No. 2-Corporation flouted various Rules and regulations for committing illegal acts and granting undue benefit to respondent Nos. 5 and 6, he was constrained to approach this Court. The petitioner has stated that he has no personal interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

5. According to the petitioner, there was a plot near Parvati Nala in the city of Pune which was vacant. Since the land did not belong to any one it belonged to the Government. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 8 who is an Architect moved the Corporation for sanctioning of a plan for a building on the plot without the signature of the owner and without specifying the area. Respondent No. 5 who was ex-President of the Standing Committee an Councillor of respondent No. 2 Corporation put the said proposal to develop the plot at the cost of corporation fund. The Assistant Engineer of the Corporation, without verifying the ownership as well as area, sanctioned the plans for construction of sports complex on 28th October, 1999. A letter dated May 29, 2000 (Exh.d) shows that the proposal of sports complex was sanctioned without verifying ownership and exact area of the plot. Since an architect had prepared a plan, the letter was sent to the Building Department. A letter dated 9th June, 2000 by the Deputy Engineer (Exh. E) reveals that the proposal had been rejected on several grounds. Surprisingly, however, the corporation was again moved under the pressure of respondent No. 5, who insisted to get the plans sanctioned. A resolution No. 1982 was passed by the Standing Committee of the second respondent on 5th December, 2000 to accept the proposal made by respondent No. 5. The General Body accepted the recommendation. Finally, a resolution was passed by the General Body of respondent No. 1 and a lease deed was executed in favour of Shiv Shakti Prtishthan, respondent No. 6 granting sports Complex on lease for thirty years at the monthly rent of Rs. 26,000/-.

6. The petitioner stated that respondent No. 6 is running commercial activities by charging rates as high as other commercial club for gymnasium, swimming pool and other activities. It is also the assertion of the petitioner that the construction cost was made from municipal funds by violating Rules of construction and an amount of Rs. 2.75 crores was invested (Rs. 70 lakhs construction+ Rs. 2.05 crores-la

Click Here to Read the rest of this document