So far all interim orders have been in favour of the Manch in all the cases. When the Court admits a case, it means that prima facie the points made by the petitioner are accepted for arguments. This is necessary because an impression lurks in the minds of many that approaching courts or tribunals is a waste of time and money because of delays. However, it is emphasised that courts may take long to finally dispose of a case, but interim orders keep the respondents on toes and acting as a pressure group falls as one of the objectives of the Manch. The status of court cases is as follows:

Ser No Case Details
1 Visit of Women and Children to Vaishnodevi: In Municipal Court RCS 1 of 2005 and WP-3189-2009.
Having lost the case both in the lower court and the District Court, then PMC Commissioner TC Benjamin has filed a writ petition on 03.12.2009 in Bombay HC contending that the District Court does not have jurisdiction to try the case and has obtained an interim stay. The case has been admitted. The last date of hearing was 18.11.2011.
2 Tree Authority: HC CP 610 of 2014 in Bombay High Court.
The case has been admitted. We have submitted four affidavits so far and the draft of the fifth affidavit has been sent to the lawyer. The matter had last come onboard on 07.02.2019 but our lawyer could not be present. The next date is 01.10.2019.
3 TDR case : PIL 127 of 2006 in Bombay High Court:
The case has been admitted. After amending the original application as ordered by the Court on 21.03.2014. The matter was mentioned on 09.08.2019 and our lawyer succeeded in getting the next date on 18.12.2019
4 Balbharati-Paud Phata Road : PIL 156-2006 in Bombay High Court:
The Court ruled in our favour in it’s dated 15.01.2016. The Court squashed the construction of the road due to its basic contention that the approving authority did not apply its mind to the environmental aspect while approving the road. Now the road has been included in the DP 2007 (Current DP) and approved by the State Government but without applying its mind to the environmental aspect. Hence, the NCM took up with the PMC that in case the road construction has to be progressed, the PMC must apply its mind to the environmental aspect and establish the need for the road. The PMC acceded to our request and agreed to consult with the Manch, Parisar, Pedestrian First and Centre for Development Studies and Activities (NGOs 2 comprising the Expert Committee formed by the Commissioner in June 2007) at every stage of planning. A member each from Pedestrian First and NCM are members of the Tender Committee representing the EC. Consultants for the EIA and the Traffic Studies have been appointed and the consultancies are in progress and likely to submit their final reports soon.
5 COEP flyover : PIL 73-2010 in Bombay High Court:
The case has been admitted. The last hearing took place on 4 June 2018. Adv Ankit Kulkarni represented NCM. To start with, Justice Oka asked whether the flyover is completed, which was answered in the affirmative. Adv Ankit brought out that the congestion on both flyovers (Magarpatta & CoEP) has shifted from road level to the level of the flyovers for which he showed two newspaper clippings from Lokmat that NCM had sent him. He also told the Court that PMC has not adhered to its commitment to construct a subway for students to walk across from the Hostels to the College nor erected sound barriers to deflect sound from the classrooms. PMC has only marked a pedestrian crossing for the students and staff to cross over from one wing of the CoEP to the other. PMC has also not taken any precautionary measures to protect the heritage buildings of the CoEP from sound and GHG emissions. Further, it is essential that accountability be established because more than Rs 100 Crores has been spent without achieving the intended result. The Judge said on 4 June 2018 that these demands should be put in the form of prayers in our petitions and as such, we should consider amending our original petition with these prayers added. NCM has given a brief to the lawyer to prepare the amendment. The lawyer submitted the amendment to the Court but no date has yet been given by the Court.
6 Aadhaar : WP 932 of 2013 in Supreme Court:
The hearings were completed on 20.03.2018. Adv Chander Uday Singh represented NCM. A brief on the final NCM affidavit is as follows:

(a) The Aadhaar Project and the Aadhaar Act as a whole are unconstitutional (and even voluntary use may not be permitted),
(b) Alternatively, voluntary use of Aadhaar may be permitted, provided there are added safeguards and it is not made mandatory,
(c) In any event, if the broad argument is not accepted, the Court must examine each specific domain in which Aadhaar has been effectively made mandatory, and subject it to a proportionality analysis.
(d) Alternatively, the Court may at least consider striking down or reading down specific sections of the Aadhaar Act and specific regulations that violate constitutional rights, and reading in other requirements. NCM submitted its Concluding Note on 20.03.2018. The Supreme Court issued its judgement on September 26, 2018.

The Judgement starts with the following sentence: It is better to be unique than the best. Because, being the best makes you the number one, but being unique makes you the only one. Principle of Proportionality and Legitimacy

The concerns expressed on behalf of the petitioners arising from the possibility of the State infringing the right to privacy can be met by the test suggested for limiting the discretion of the State:

(i) The action must be sanctioned by law;

(ii) The proposed action must be necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim;

(iii) The extent of such interference must be proportionate to the need for such interference;

(iv) There must be procedural guarantees against abuse of such interference.” Restrictions of the right to privacy may be justifiable in the following circumstances subject to the principle of proportionality:

(a) Other fundamental rights: The right to privacy must be considered in relation to its function in society and be balanced against other fundamental rights.
(b) Legitimate national security interest.
(c) Public interest including scientific or historical research purposes or statistical purposes.
(d) Criminal Offences: the need of the competent authorities for prevention investigation, prosecution of criminal offences including safeguards against threat to public security;
(e) The unidentifiable data: the information does not relate to identified or identifiable natural person but remains anonymous. The European Union Regulation of 2016 31 refers to ‘pseudonymisation’ which means the processing of personal data in such a manner that the personal data can no longer be attributed to a specific data subject without the use of additional information, provided that such additional information is kept separately and is subject to technical and organisational measures to ensure that the personal data are not attributed to an identified or identifiable natural person;
(f) The tax etc: the regulatory framework of tax and working of financial institutions, markets may require disclosure of private information. But then this would not entitle the disclosure of the information to all and sundry and there should be data protection rules according to the objectives of the processing. There may however, be processing which is compatible for the purposes for which it is initially collected. Supreme Court strikes down Sections 33(2), 47 and 57 of the Act
7 Rochem : PIL 18 of 2015 in Bombay High Court:
NCM’s intervention filed on 15th Dec 2015 was admitted and accepted. The Court has enlarged the scope of PIL 18 of 2015 in its order dated 22.08.2016 as follows:

(i) We, therefore, direct the Pune Municipal Corporation as well as the Bombay Municipal Corporation to issue appropriate directions for the purpose of collecting separately the dry and wet waste from the housing societies / premises / houses/ hotels/ restaurants/ manufactures of foods and other industries. The concerned Corporations all over the State of Maharashtra may give similar directions.

(ii) Application for intervention to be heard along with the main application/petition. The case has since been transferred to NGT West and not come up for hearing.
8 24-hour Composting : Case no. 190 of 2016 with NGT Pune Bench:
Pertains to technology for making compost in 24 hours. After NCM established that the compost made in 24 hours does not conform to the specification in Schedule II of SWM Rules 2016, the contractor informed the NGT that he would now keep the compost for maturing for 30 days and then put it in the market. MPCB’s test result for 30 days matured compost also falls short of the specified standards. There are no hearings at the NGT because there is no judge. The last date was 05.03.2018.
9 Collusive Bidding in MSW : Case No 50 of 2015 with Competition Commission of India:
The CCI has ruled in our favour. Considering contravention of provisions of the Act, an amount of INR 13.07 Lakhs, INR 45.20 Lakhs, INR 42 Lakhs, INR 1.51 Crores, INR 3.36 Crores and INR 30.55 Lakhs was computed as leviable penalty on six firms namely Fortified, Ecoman, Lahs Green, Sanjay Agencies, Mahalakshmi and Raghunath, respectively, in terms of Section 27 (b) of the Act. Additionally, considering totality of facts and circumstances of the case, penalty leviable on individual officials of four firms namely Ecoman, Lahs Green, Sanjay Agencies and Raghunath was computed at the rate of 10 percent of their average income for the same three years. All six firms approached CCI as lesser penalty applicants. As such, CCI fined the companies as follows: on Mahalkshmi INR 1.68 crore, on Lahs Green INR 21 Lakh, on Sanjay Agencies INR 90.64 Lakh and on Ecoman was INR 33.90 Lakhs. Thereafter NCM started the process to requesting the concerned authorises to investigate the involvement of PMC in this bid process by writing to Central Vigilance Commission for the two top officers i.e. IAS & IDES and Anti-Corruption Bureau for the balance junior PMC officers. Despite several reminders, we have not been adviced the status. The 6 companies have now appealed to the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal against the penalties. NCLAT has given a temporary stay on payment of fines till the final disposal of the case. After initial hearing, arguments are in progress. The last date was 13 August 2019.
10 Collusive Bidding Tree Census : Case No. 12 of 2017 Competition Commission of India::
The case pertains to PMC's agreement with SAAR IT Resources Private Limited dated 27.04.2016 for the “Selection of Agency for Carrying Out Geo-enabled Tree Census using GIS & GPS Technology, Development of Tree Census Application, Operate & Manage the Census Data under Provisions of Tree Act & Rules within the PMC jurisdiction area” floated under PMC's Tender No. 338 of 2015. After registering of this case, the Competition Commission of India Board had directed the DG, CCI to carry out an inquiry as the NCM had established a prima facie case. Maj. Gen. Jatar was called for discussions by the Joint DG to New Delhi twice. Every time, NCM had submitted the additional documents as required. Thereafter on 02.08.2019, CCI passed an order indicting and penalising three companies for cartelization in bid process. With respect to the role of PMC, the CCI has noted that the DG has found enough evidence, which shows that PMC failed to detect cartelization in its own tender process leading to irregularities. In view of this and in order to start investigation, the Commissioner has been requested to short-list names of some judges within the end of August 2019 and the selection criteria should be by a committee constituted by the Commissioner where representation of NCM is a prerequisite. SAAR has also appealed to the NCLAT. However, no date has been given by NCLAT yet.
11 Induction of NGO members on Prabhag Samitis : PIL no. 50 of 2017 in Bombay High Court :
This case pertains to non-compliant processes that have been followed for selection / co-option of Non-Government and / or Social Organisation representatives on Pune Municipal Corporation’s Ward Committees whose terms by law are supposed to be co-terminus with the elected municipal representatives during the 5 year terms of the local municipal corporation as per MMC Act 1949. In addition, there is breach of the provisions under 74th Amendment to the Indian Constitution which was enacted for devolution and decentralisation of powers to local urban authorities. Earlier, NCM had filed PIL no.62 / 2016 which had been disposed by CJI who directed PMC to revert to all compliances sought by NCM. PMC deliberately misunderstand our prayer. So we filed another PIL in the same matter. On 25th April 2019, Bombay High Court issued order directing PMC for compliance with two months. PM completed the procedure but again went on a wrong track for eligibility. So NCM will file Contempt now the documents through RTI applications are in hand.