B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. This writ petition is entertained as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as per the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 30/10/2007. Briefly stated, the grievance is about an activity in the shape of an educational institute and a students hostel in residential area. It is alleged that the construction is raised without legal sanction from the competent authority. Respondent No. 5 before this Court is that institute while Respondent No. 4 is the Gram Panchayat which claims to have sanctioned the same under Section 52 of the Bombay Village Panchayat Act,1958, (hereinafter referred to as “the 1958 Act” for short). Respondent no. 6 is the Zilla Parishad which can control/suspend actions/resolutions passed by Gram Panchayat in this respect. At one time it was the stand of authorities that Standardized building bye laws for B and C class municipal councils prescribed under Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats And Industrial Townships Act (40 of 1965) needed to be followed (hereinafter referred to as “the 1965 Act” for short). The cognizance of grievance as PIL is also questioned on various grounds and one of the contentions is subsequent amendment to letter treated as PIL by the petitioners, can not be looked into as its part and parcel.

2. With this background, we proceed to narrate the facts.

(A). 15 petitioners wrote a letter dated 8/10/2007 to the Hon'ble The Chief Justice of this Court by designation as also by name ( then the Hon'ble Chief Justice Shri Swatantra Kumar) as also to the then Administrative Judge at Bombay Shri J.N. Patel (using name also) and to the Administrative Judge at Nagpur. It was received by the office of Hon'ble The Chief Justice on 15/10/2007. Registrar(JudicialI) at Mumbai on 29102007 placed it with a note before the Hon'ble Chief Justice and sought orders as to ( A) whether said communication be treated as PIL and sent to Nagpur Bench or then (B) whether it be filed after informing the writers that they may take recourse to remedy available in law, if so advised. Hon'ble The Chief Justice approved part “A” of the note. We are making reference to this letter in more details in paragraph 8 below.

(B). Deputy Registrar of High Court at Nagpur had in the meanwhile on 24/10/2007 placed the very same letter received by Senior or Administrative Judge at Nagpur with similar note and sought directions whether (A) it be treated as PIL, (B) whether report of Collector. Wardha be called within one month or then (C) whether to file it after informing the applicants to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy, if they so desired. The Hon'ble Administrative or Senior Judge at Nagpur approved option “B”. This therefore shows that appropriate cognizance was taken at Nagpur as also at Mumbai independently by the competent Hon'ble Judges.

(C). Matter was listed on 17/12/2007 before the Division Bench presided over by same Senior Judge only and was adjourned to 19/12/2007. The report was already called from the office of Collector Wardha by Joint Registrar (Criminal1) of this Court vide communication dated 29/11/2007 as per the directions of Hon'ble Senior/Administrative Judge at Nagpur. Said report dated 6/14122007 was received and on 17/12/2007 itself orders of Hon'ble Senior Judge before whom the matter was listed earlier on same day on judicial side were procured to tag that report with writ petition. Accordingly, report was made available to the same Division Bench on next date i.e., on 19/12/2007. On that day after hearing, this Court issued notice before admission returnable on 9/1/2008. Matter was also directed to be placed before High Court Legal Services Subcommittee. On 10/1/2008 the matter appeared on daily board and Petitioners then were given assistance of an advocate as amicus curiae. On 29/1/2008, Respondent no. 5 filed its submissions mostly raising challenge to the cognizance and maintainability. Respondent no. 4 Gram Panchayat also filed its repl