B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

1. By this petition, the challenge is to action of Respondent No. 2 in allotting land reserved for Primary School, Secondary School and Playground to Respondent No. 4 – Educational Institution/ Trust. The petition has been accepted as Public Interest Litigation as per orders of the learned Senior Judge on 02.12.2010 and on 06.12.2010 notices were issued to the other side.

2. The facts briefly stated are: The reservation is on Khasra No. 12 of Mouza – Bhamti included in Bhamti Parsodi Street Scheme of Nagpur Improvement Trust (respondent 2 herein) and as per Development Plan sanctioned in the year 2001, it has reservation No. SW 164 for Primary School on area 0.176 H. Reservation No. SW 165 is on Area 0.352 H. for secondary School and reservation No. MSW 16 for playground is 1.1136 H. The remaining reservation is for 9 mtrs. x 12 mtrs. wide road and residential purpose.

3. The prayers in the petition are to quash an advertisement dated 29.03.2010 with its corrigendum issued later and the subsequent tender notice similarly published in September 2010. The petitioners before this Court are the residents of the area. Petitioner No. 1 is a Lecturer while petitioner No. 2 is an association of local residents formed for saving the said playground.

4. One of the prayers in the petition also sought declaration that modification of reservations suggested by Respondent No. 3 – Nagpur Municipal Corporation vide notice dated 26.10.2010 under Section 37 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Practices Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as 1966 Act) by seeking deletion of reservation for Primary School and Secondary School and to add the land thereof to playground is legal and valid. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of this petition, Nagpur Municipal Corporation has considered said proposal and later on decided to withdraw it.. With the result, original reservation as given in Development Plan stands as it is. The position declared by Respondent No. 3 on record and vide affidavit dated 10.08.2011 and declaration that proposal for minor modification of Development Plan initiated under Section 37 of 1966 Act is dropped, has not been questioned in any way though thereafter CAO No. 1182 of 2011 has been moved by the petitioners on 24.08.2011 seeking leave to add para 16G to the petition. That amendment was allowed by this Court on 14.09.2011. Thus, the declaration that proposal to drop reservations for Secondary School and Primary School is valid. has not been pressed thereafter by the petitioners. Similarly, though there is a subsequent tender issued in September 2010, that second tender has also not been questioned before this Court specifically. However, it needs to be pointed out that resolution by Respondent No. 2 – Nagpur Improvement Trust passed on 07.01.2011 accepting the offer received in pursuance of that tender has been challenged by amending the prayer clause and by adding grounds on 25.03.2011 and thereafter on 14.09.2011.

5. We have heard Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kale, learned AGP for respondent No. 1, Shri Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Shri Kaptan, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 Municipal Corporation and Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate with Shri V.V. Bhangde, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

6. After pointing out the facts in brief, Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel has urged that there are 20 Schools in the vicinity and hence there is no need of any new Primary and Secondary School in the area. He has contended that area is congested one and children are having no facility of playground and similarly elderly persons have no open space for their Morning or Evening walk and exercise. He, therefore, contends that the allotment of entire land with even reservation for playground to Respondent No. 4 is contrary to provisions of Act of 1966. He points out that in first tender notice inviting offers, the area declared for Scho