When arguing against a possible demolition of the building, Manohar likened the ill fated building to that of an ``illegitimate product''. Justice Srikrishna, after listening to his arguments, asked, ``Suppose this was an illegitimate child, should nothing be done?''

``Punish those responsible for the illegitimacy, but not the product, for the child has nothing to do with his illegitimacy,'' said Manohar promptly.Manohar today cited Supreme Court cases to show precedents to support his arguments.His reasoning was: Even if tainted with mala fides, if his client was legally entitled to get the plot for the project, it could not be denied to him. He repeated the earlier arguments that the plot had been reserved for a school, but there were 11 primary schools in the locality. Manohar cited the earliest reservations on the plot under the various acts of town planning for Pune and claimed that the plot was first reserved for residential purposes.

The senior counsel, however, held that the public interest litigation lacked in bona fides. He argued that the petition, filed around eight months after tenants moved into the newly constructed building was not motivated by simple public interest at heart. ``As the Supreme Court has said, a person who is a public interest litigant should have a clean mind and a clean heart. Is there something more in the litigation of a `vigilant' corporator and a `vigilant' journalist who allowed the construction to be complete before approaching court?'' he asked.

He addedthat the construction was not carried out in a clandestine way, but was on an open plot where the tenants were rehabilitated and two buildings were allowed to be constructed. However, Justice Srikrishna observed that one need not look at the PIL from that angle alone. ``The building in itself may not be a PIL, but if one were to look into the purity of administration, why shouldn't that be a PIL?'' he asked.