JUDGMENT:—Heard. 2.On 2nd December, 2003 the State Government issued notification constituting three additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunals for the area comprised within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Brihanmumbai. 3.In furtherance thereof, the first floor of the New Annexe Building of the Small Causes Court, Bombay has been made available for housing the three newly created additional MACTs and its offices. 4.By this present writ petition filed at the instance of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bar Association, Mumbai and its President, it is prayed that the decision of the respondents to shift/bifurcate the Tribunal premises by allotting three Courts at Small Causes Court premises at Dhobi Talao be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to allot the four vacant non-functional rooms vacated by the Rationing Authority in the building where MACT is presently located. 5.We heard Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. V.M. Thorat, the learned Counsel for the intervenor. 6.The submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the State Government cannot compare the needs of the MACT with the need of the other departments of the State Government and since the accommodation to house newly created additional MACTs in available in the building where MACT is presently located, the vacant available rooms adjacent to the existing MACT can be allotted to accommodate the newly created additional MACTs. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8th October, 1984 in Writ Petition No. 1584/1984, (The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Bar Association others v. The State of Maharashtra others)1. 7.On behalf of the Intervenor, it was submitted by the learned Counsel that the victims of the accidents happen to be injured and disabled and they have to attend the hearing and if the newly created MACTs are housed on the first floor of the New Annexe Building of the Small Causes Court, the victim litigant will be gravely inconvenienced. 8.We are not at all impressed by any of the submissions advanced before us. 9.At the outset, we may observe that the four rooms viz. Cabin Nos. 18, 23, 24 and 25 said to be vacant adjacent to the existing MACT can be hardly said to be sufficient to accommodate three newly created additional MACTs. In this view of the matter, prayer (b) of the writ petition cannot be granted. 9.At the outset, we may observe that the four rooms viz. Cabin Nos. 18, 23, 24 and 25 said to be vacant adjacent to the existing MACT can be hardly said to be sufficient to accommodate three newly created additional MACTs. In this view of the matter, prayer (b) of the writ petition cannot be granted. 10.During the course of arguments it was suggested that some accommodation was available in the area shown as "Hostel" in the map taken on record and marked "X". Though there is no such case set up in the writ petition but we find from the petitioners own letter dated 11th September, 2003 placed in the compilation that the rooms suggested by the petitioners are being used as Rest House. What is stated in the letter is that these rooms are not in use regularly. Obviously, when the said premises are meant for hostel purpose, rooms therein cannot be used regularly. However, one thing is clear from the petitioners own letter that these rooms are being used as Rest House. Moreover, we are of the view that it is not for the petitioners to dictate that the rooms which are being used as Rest House must be made available to house the newly created additional MACTs. In a city like Bombay with the increase in the litigation, courts or Tribunals have also to be increased and it may not be possible to house additionally created courts and/or Tribunals in one building or one complex and the situation may demand to house additional courts and/or Tribunals at some other place. In so far as the housing of the newly created three MACTs is concerned, the accommodation has been provided in the first floor of the New Annexe Building of the Small Causes Court, Mumbai which cannot be said to be inconsistent with public interest. In so far as the litigant is concerned, in our considered view, it hardly matters to him or her, whether MACT is located in Administrative Staff College or Small Causes Court. We are informed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that both the buildings viz. Administrative Staff College as well as Small Causes Court are situated in the same area i.e. Dhobi Talao. We are informed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that both the buildings viz. Administrative Staff College as well as Small Causes Court are situated in the same area i.e. Dhobi Talao. 11.Some grievance was raised before us that though three Court rooms have been allotted in the New Annexue Building of the Small Causes Court for housing the newly created additional MACTs, but no provision has been made for staff and the bar room. This grievance hardly impresses us. Once the three newly created Additional MACTs start functioning from the New Annexe Building of the Small Causes Court and if some difficulty or inconvenience is found, such inconvenience or difficulty can be considered but that would not justify to upturn the decision to house three additional MACTs at New Annexe Building, Small Causes Court. 12.The decision to house the three additional MACTs at New Annexe building, Small Causes Court, Mumbai, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be inconsistent or against the public interest. To us, the present PIL seems to be more in the nature of Professionals Interest Litigation than Public Interest Litigation. Some inconvenience to the lawyers practising in the MACT will not justify interference in the order whereby three additional MACTs constituted vide notification dated 2nd December, 2003 has been decided to be housed in the New Annexe Building, Small Causes Court, Mumbai. 13.We, accordingly, do not find any justifiable ground to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction in the matter. 14.Writ petition is, thus, dismissed. The parties may be provided ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by Court Associate on payment of usual copying charges. Petition dismissed. -----