JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the petitioner herein filed RTI application concerning the fees paid by Respondent No. 1 to 2nd respondent in Kangana Ranaut's building demolition case and reply was received from the 1st respondent that it has paid 82.50 lacs to 2nd respondent. The Petitioner was shocked by the astronomical legal fees paid to 2nd respondent. It is submitted that the petitioner consulted various lawyers and came to know that Division Bench (Coram:- B.R. Gavai & M.S. Karnik, JJ.) of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2309 of 2016 (Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors) affirmatively laid down the guidelines to Respondent No. 1 qua engaging the services of senior advocate. Learned counsel invites our attention to paragraph 5 to 8 of the said interim order and submits that inspite of such guidelines issued by this Court the services of 2nd respondent were engaged as senior advocate and exorbitant fees has been paid to him by the Respondent No. 1. It is submitted that, it is categorically mentioned by the High Court in the said order that the demolition of any unauthorized structures are petty matters and appointing senior advocate to represent the Respondent No. 1 is to be avoided, so as to save public funds. Learned counsel also invites our attention to the pleadings and grounds taken in the petition and submits that this Court may direct CBI to cause the investigation and prosecution of the offenders under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. It is further prayed that the respondents be held guilty for willfully causing loss to the exchequer. Respondent No. 1 and its officials be held guilty for forum shopping and issue suitable directions for recovery of INR 82.50 lacs paid by Respondent No. 1 to 2nd respondent. 2. Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1 invites our attention to the contents of affidavit in reply filed by Corporation in Writ Petition No. 2309 of 2016. He tendered it across the bar, which we have taken on record. He submits that, it is for the Respondent No. 1 to decide which matter is important and which is petty. He tendered it across the bar, which we have taken on record. He submits that, it is for the Respondent No. 1 to decide which matter is important and which is petty. It may appear that the matter is petty, but out come of such matter have effect on hundreds of similar pending matters and therefore, corporation thinks it fit to engage services of Senior Advocates. It is submitted that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation filed affidavit in reply in Writ Petition No. 2309 of 2016 (Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) and justified the engagement of Senior Advocate in the matters wherein the Corporation is main party. It is submitted that in the said affidavit all the factual aspects were kept on record including fees paid to the Senior Advocates. It is submitted that the aforesaid writ petition was finally decided by the Division Bench (Coram:- B.R. Gavai & M.S. Karnik, JJ.) on 08.09.2017, wherein this Court did not make any adverse observations against the Respondent-Corporation and the writ petition was simply disposed of on merits. It is submitted that this Court was satisfied with the reply filed by the Respondent-Corporation in Writ Petition No. 2309 of 2016. It is submitted that reliance placed by the learned counsel for the Petitioner on observations made in the interim order dated 22.08.2017, are totally misplaced, inasmuch as the very same Division Bench finally disposed of the matter on 08.09.2017, keeping in view the averments in the affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent-Corporation and did not mention anything in respect of appointing/engaging of Senior Advocate by the Corporation and fees paid to the Senior Advocate. 3. Mr. Sathe, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 2 relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Vinoy Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others, (2001) 4 SCC 734 submits that the petitioner claims to be agriculturist, he has nothing to do with the legal profession and has filed this petition with an ulterior motive which is not maintainable. It is submitted that it is for the Respondent-Corporation to engage services of advocate of their choice like ordinary litigant and therefore, there is no substance in the writ petition and writ petition may be dismissed. 4. We have given due consideration to the rival submissions. It is submitted that it is for the Respondent-Corporation to engage services of advocate of their choice like ordinary litigant and therefore, there is no substance in the writ petition and writ petition may be dismissed. 4. We have given due consideration to the rival submissions. With the able assistance of learned counsel for the Petitioner and Senior Advocate appearing for Respondents, we have carefully perused the pleadings and grounds in the petition and reply filed by the Corporation in the aforementioned Writ Petition No. 2309 of 2016 and also judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinoy Kumar (Supra). At the outset, it may not be out of place to mention that the allegations made in the petition smack of malafide and such allegations cannot be countenanced by any standard. As rightly submitted by Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No. 1, that the Corporation engaged services of Respondent No. 2 keeping in view the important issues involved in the matter and the outcome of said matter has impact upon hundreds of such cases wherein there are allegations of unauthorized construction. We find that the professional fees paid to 2nd respondent is duly approved by the authorities of the Corporation and same is mentioned in record maintained by the Corporation, which is evident from the information received by the Petitioner under RTI about payment of such fees. We have carefully perused the observations made by this Court (Coram:- B.R. Gavai & M.S. Karnik, JJ.) in its interim order 22.08.2017, however, it appears that the Corporation subsequently filed a detailed affidavit in the said matter, disclosing the amount paid to Senior Advocates and why it was necessary to engage services of Senior Advocates in important matters, mentioning that the outcome of such matters would have impact upon other similar hundreds of cases wherein the Corporation is made party. When the Division Bench (Coram:- B.R. Gavai & M.S. Karnik, JJ.) finally decided the writ petition on 08.09.2017, we do not find any discussion about appointment of Senior Advocates in the said matter or fees paid to the Senior Advocates in other matters wherein Corporation is made party. 5. It is surprising to note that that the Petitioner is seeking direction by invoking extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to register the offence against the respondents, cause investigation by CBI and to withdraw the gown of 2nd respondent. 5. It is surprising to note that that the Petitioner is seeking direction by invoking extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to register the offence against the respondents, cause investigation by CBI and to withdraw the gown of 2nd respondent. Such prayers cannot be granted since we are of the opinion that it is for the Respondent-Corporation to engage the services of advocate to represent in the Court cases, keeping in view the interest of the Corporation. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Hence, the writ petition stands rejected.