Dharmik Foundation Thr. Its Managing Trustee And 3 ORS v. State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., And 4 ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CAO No. 448/2015 in PIL No.38/2010 Dharmik Education and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders.

Orders.

Shri A. C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Thakre, Addl. GP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Shri S.K. Mishra, Advocate for respondent no.3. Shri S.S. Sanyal, Advocate for respondent no.4 Shri Palshikar, Advocate for respondent no.5. Shri A. G. Gharote, Advocate for intervenor.

Shri C.S. Kaptan, Advocate with Shri S.M. Puranik, Advocate for Resp.-Corporation.

CORAM : B.R.Gavai & C.V. Bhadang, JJ.

DATE : March 11, 2015.

Heard.

This is an application for extension of period for complying with the order dated 28th October, 2013 till July 2015. Vide aforesaid order, this Court had recorded the statement made on behalf of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation that the Sewerage Treatment Project being constructed in collaboration with MAHAGENCO would be made operational latest by 31st May, 2014. It is stated in the affidavit that due to reasons like getting clearance from the Indian Railways etc., the said Plan could not be

made operational, as assured.

In the morning, when the matter was called out, we have asked the learned Senior Counsel for affidavit on behalf of the NMC as to whether the NMC is willing to file an undertaking that the plan would be operational, in any event , till July 2015. Accordingly, the undertaking is placed on record by Superintending Engineer, N.M.C. Nagpur of the respondent stating therein that the said Sewerage Treatment Project would be made operational by July 2015.

The undertaking is accepted. The period is extended till the end of July 2015. We make it clear that in no eventuality request on behalf of respondent no.3 would be entertained for extension of period for making the scheme/plan be operational.

We further make it clear that even the ground of paucity of funds etc., would not be entertained, as an excuse, for a period of extension.

JUDGE JUDGE Ambulkar