Maruti Bhimrao Bugade and 6 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra Thru Law and Judicial Dept. and 4 Ors.

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (LOD) NO. 1958 OF 2007

¶3

Maruti Bhimrao Bugade & Others..Petitioners
V/s

¶4

State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents.

¶5

Mr. M.V. Holamagi for the Petitioners.

¶6

Mr. A.A. Kumbhkoni AAG with Mr. P.M. Jadhav, AGP
for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2007

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1.Heard.

¶10

2.Mr.Holamagi, the learned Counsel has
presented before us historical background of the
Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court Mumbai and pross
and cons of creating sub-division of the Court from
the location where the Bombay City Civil and Sessions
Court is situated. It is in this backdrop that he
has filed this petition impugning the Notification
dated 20th February, 2007 issued by the
respondent-State and strongly objects to any
subdivision of the Bombay City Civil and Sessions

¶11

:2:

¶12

Court at Mumbai. The substantive prayer in the
petition are prayer clause (a) and (b) which reads as
under:-

¶13

"(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
issue Writ of Mandamus or Writ of such nature
direct the Respondents No. 1 and 4 to hand
over both the Buildings lying and adjacent to
the present Old Secretariate building, and
after taking over the same, the Respondent
No.1 to make available the necessary
infrastructure to establish additional Courts
if necessary to enable to implement the
Notification of Respondent No. 1 and to
approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court if the
report of the Respondent No.2 and get the stay
vacated from the Honourable Supreme Court with
regard to issue of Notification and
enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of City
Civil and Sessions Court, Bombay.

¶14

(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
issue Writ of Ceritorari or Writ of such
nature by calling for records and proceedings
of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and quash and
set aside the Impugned Notification dated 20th
February, 2007, and also the decision to
create City Civil and Sessions Court at
Dindoshi, Goregaon and any decision taken to
establish the City Civil and Sessions Court at
Dindoshi, Goregaon and pass such order
directions as deem fit and proper;"

¶15

3.After hearing Mr. Holamagi, at length for one
and a half hour this Court made repeated queries to
the learned Counsel to show us any illegality or
irregularity which will vitiate the impugned

¶16

:3:

¶17

Notification, that would enable the petitioners to
get the relief, sought for in the petition.

¶18

4.Mr. Holamagi has addressed on the impugned
Notification with reference to Sections 7 and 9 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is his
contention that a subdivision cannot be constituted
in terms of Notification dated 20th February, 2007 as
it does not in any manner refer to creation of the
subdivision but it establishes a Court of Sessions
Division at Dindoshi (Goregaon) which is to be
presided over by the Additional Sessions Judge at
Dindoshi, which will have jurisdiction co-extensive
of Court of Chief Metropolitan and Metropolitan
Magistrate which may try the cases therein between
the said area.

¶19

5.Mr. Holamagi submits that the issues raised
in this petition are much larger, than merely rather
challenging the Notification dated 20th February,
2007 and the prayer clause (a) in the petition rather
stress the requirement of creating more Courts by
acquiring the adjoining building in the precincts of

¶20

:4:

¶21

Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court at Mumbai.

¶22

6.He has further contended that there is a move
on the part of the Bombay City Civil and Sessions
Court even to transfer the civil cases to the Court
at Dindoshi, which is to be inaugurated on 18th
September, 2007 for which there is no Notification.

¶23

7.In our view, Mr. Holamagi has not been able
to point out how the impugned Notification stands
vitiated for non compliance of any legal provision so
that this Court can quash and set aside the same. We
do not find any merit in the petition and therefore,
we need not call upon the respondents to file any
reply . The petition is dismissed in limine.

¶24

8.After we pass this order, Mr. Holamagi has
requested this Court that under the guise of this
Notification whether the civil matters can be
transferred to Dindoshi Court and further whether
that Court will have jurisdiction from Bandra to
Dindoshi.

¶25

:5:

¶26

9.We have recorded this at the insistence of Mr.
Holamagi and we make it clear that this is not the
subject matter of the petition, nor there is any
legal impediment in the way of Principal Judge of the
City Civil Court to assign civil matters to any of
the Judges working under him under his administrative
control and therefore, this submission of Mr.
Holamagi has no substance.

¶27

10.Mr. Holamagi submits that he seeks leave of
this Court to prefer an SLP before the Supreme Court
in the matter and till then the effect and operation
of the order should be stayed. It is further stated
that this Court may also pass an interim order
deferring the inauguration of the Sessions Division
at Dindoshi under the impugned Notification.

¶28

11.In our view , there is no question involving
any substantial question of law or constitutional
issue, so as to grant leave to the petitioner in the
matter to approach the Supreme Court of India and as
we have dismissed this petition, no interim relief
can be granted so far as inauguration of the Sessions

¶29

:6:

¶30

Division at Dindoshi, which is scheduled on 18th
September, 2007 is concerned.

¶31

12.Mr. Holamagi requests that an authenticated
copy of the order passed by this Court should be made
available to him by today evening. We direct that
authenticated copy of the order be furnished to Mr.
Holamagi today itself, during the course of the day
before Court closes.

¶32

( A.A. SAYED, J.)

¶33

:7:

¶34

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1958 OF 2007

¶35

Maruti Bhimrao Bugade & Others ..Petitioners
V/s

¶36

State of Maharashtra & Others..Respondents

¶37

Mr. M.V. Homamagi for the Petitioners.

¶38

Mr. A.A. Kumbhkoni, AAG with Mr. P.M. Jadhav, AGP
for the Respondent-State.

¶39

CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND
A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶40

DATE : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2007

¶41

P.C.

¶42

.Mr. Holamagi the learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioners strongly objects to Mr. M.P
Vashi, Advocate addressing this Court in the matter
without making appropriate application for
intervention.

¶43

2. Mr. Vashi, learned Advocate submits that as this
is the Public Interest Litigation, he has got a right
to address this Court, which is refuted by Mr.
Holamagi by stating that in Mr. Vashi’s petition
when he sought to intervene, it was insisted upon

¶44

:8:

¶45

that he should file an application for intervention
and he should be treated only as intervenor.

¶46

3.Without going into the controversy, it will be
proper that Mr.Vashi files an application to
intervene in the matter, if he so desire in which he
can bring all facts on record, which he wants to
place before the Court. Mr. Holamagi submits that
he will give a copy of the petition to Mr. Vashi
today itself.

Maruti Bhimrao Bugade and 6 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Thru Law and Judicial Dept. and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Bhimrao Bugade and 6 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra Thru Law and Judicial Dept. and 4 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

The Executive Engineer Public Works Division Vs Rajaram Shankar Salunke

Subhash R. Rakshe Vs the Administrator - Aministration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvasa and Ors.

S.J.Parekh Vs Shakuntala Yeshwant Dhole and Othrs

Mahadeo Manyaba Barge Since Deceased through L.R.S and Others. Vs Janabai Ramchandara Barge

Iimuddin Ismail Inamdar Vs Ayesha Iimuddin Inamdar

Mahadeo Manyaba Barge Since Deceased through L.R.S and Others. Vs Janabai Ramchandara Barge