Dismissed

Mangesh D. Temkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Aug 2007PIL/68/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL challenging a FL-3 license grant, the Court held the petition was barred under res judicata principles as it was essentially a private dispute filed by a license holder regarding a license previously withdrawn. The petition was dismissed with exemplary costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- exemplary costs to Respondent No. 4.

Mangesh D. Temkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.68 OF 2007

¶4

 Mangesh D. Temkar ..Petitioner.

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 State of Marashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.
 Mr.A.S. Khandeparkar for petitioner.

¶7

 Mr.S.R.Page for respondent No.4.

¶8

 Mr.V.A.Sonpal for respondent No.1.

¶9

CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 24TH AUGUST, 2007.
P.C. :-

¶11

 We are clearly of the opinion that this is
 not a Public Interest Litigation but a proceeding by
 the petitioner espousing his own private interest as he
 himself is a licence holder.

¶12

 2. Earlier "Association of Sindhudurg Zilla
 Hotel ‘Malak’ Unnati Sangh", of which the petitioner is
 a member had filed a Public Interest Litigation
 petition. That Petition was withdrawn on a statement
 made by the counsel on production of a letter dated
 3/1/2007. The petition was accordingly dismissed as
 withdrawn. Some of the prayer for reliefs in that
 petition read, as under:-

¶13

 - = : 2 : = -

¶14

 a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
 issue Writ of Mandamus or any other
 appropriate Writ order or direction for
 directing the enquiry into the matter of
 granting permission to the 4th Respondent
 for fl3 Licence No.83 permitting the
 Respondent an permit room.

¶15

 b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
 issue Writ of Certiorari or any other
 appropriate Writ, order or direction calling
 for records and proceedings in respect of
 granting FL3 Licence No.83 to the 4th
 Respondent in respect of Hotel Raj Palace
 and on perusal thereof be pleased to quash
 and set aside the FL3 Licence granted to the
 4th Respondent Raj Palace, Achara, Tal.
 Malvan, Dist. Sindhudurg.

¶16

 It is not necessary for us to refer to the
 other prayer clauses. It is, therefore, clear that
 when the earlier petition was filed the respondent No.4
 already has a licence and that was the subject matter
 of the challenge before this Court.

¶17

 3. In the present petition the reliefs prayed
 for are as under:-

¶18

 - = : 3 : = -

¶19

 a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
 issue Writ of Mandamus or any other
 appropriate Writ order or direction for
 directing the enquiry into the process of
 grant of permission to the 4th Respondents’
 Hotel Raj Palace for permit room / FL-3
 License.

¶20

 b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
 issue Writ of Certiorari or any other
 appropriate Writ, order or direction calling
 for records and proceedings in respect of
 granting FL3 Licence to the respondent No.3
 in respect of Hotel Raj Palace and on
 perusal thereof be pleased to quash and set
 aside the FL3 Licence granted to the 4t h
 Respondent Raj Palace, Achara, Tal. Malvan,
 Dist. Sindhudurg.

¶21

 4. It is, therefore, clear that the reliefs
 sought in the earlier petition and the reliefs sought
 in the present petition are the same.

¶22

 The order dated 10/1/2007 did not grant any
 liberty to the petitioner therein to file another
 petition.

¶23

 - = : 4 : = -

¶24

 5. The question is whether in these
 circumstances the second petition as filed is
 maintainable. The law is now well settled that the
 principles of res-judicata and / or in the matter of
 withdrawal of a suit would also apply to the petitions.

¶25

 Apart from that, we have the affidavit of
 the Excise Department which has set out that the
 licence had been granted after considering the distance
 of the premises from the State Highway i.e. which was
 50.60 mtrs. from the middle of State Highway, when the
 requirement is only 50 Mtrs.

¶26

 6. In our opinion, considering the principles
 of res-judicata and / or withdrawal of the petition by
 the Association of which the petitioner was a member
 without liberty, a second petition with same cause of
 action is barred. We have already held at the
 threshold that this is nothing but a private dispute of
 the petitioner with the respondent No.4, both of whom
 are licence holders. We are, therefore, of the
 opinion, that the petition will have to be dismissed by
 imposing exemplary costs.

¶27

 7. Petition is dismissed. Petitioner to pay
 cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent No.4 within eight
 weeks.

¶28

 - = : 5 : = -

¶29

(F.I.REBELL0, J.)

¶30

(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)

Mangesh D. Temkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangesh D. Temkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Krushnaji Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Surekha Kailash Mote and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Hanumant Sugare Vs Education Officer (Primary) Zilla Parisahd, Solapur and Ors.

Govindrao Jagannath Khatavkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sadashiv Sharu Shrilimaye Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Dinesh D.Kamat Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Yashwant M. Gavand Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.

Noormohammed Khatri and 7 Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Union of India Vs Manubhai D. Shah C/O. M/S. Arvind Mills Ltd.

Union of India Vs Arvind Narottam

Union of India Vs M/S. Arvind Mills Ltd.

Union of India and Anr. Vs Gurnam Singh Sahni

Union of India and Anr. Vs Gurnam Singh Sahni

Union of India and Anr. Vs Farooq Ahmed