This PIL regarding temple management rights was dismissed as an abuse of process of the court after prior appeals failed. The Bench held PIL cannot be invoked for personal gain or vexatious litigation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 18 OF 2005
| 1) | Venkatesh Pradyumnacharya Varakhedakar Occ. Upadyay R/o Datta Ghat, Pandharpur Since deceased by his heirs and legal representatives 1-a) Bheemacharya (Bheemasen) Vyankatesh (Balacharya) Varakhedakar, Aged about 52 yr Occupation – Upadhyay and Trustee of Vaidic Dharma Samrakshak Sangha, residing at H. No. 2300, Datta Ghat, Po Pandharpur 413304, District – Solapur In the capacity of individual as well as representative of all such persons who are in favour of the subject matter and the relief claimed in the Suit. |
) ) ) ) ) s ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ). PETITIONER |
|---|---|---|
| Versus | ||
| 1) | Maharashtra State Notice to be served on The Collector, Solapur District At & Po. Solapur. |
) ) ) |
| 2) | Ramanatha Zha, Aged about 60 years Occupation – Service, Prant Office Pandharpur 413304, Dist. Solapur In the capacity of (i) individual (now C/o Chief) Secretary to the Govt. of Maharashtra State Secretariat, Fort, Mumbai) as well as |
) ) ) ) ) |
| ii) Deputy Collector, Pandharpur Sub-Division Pandhapur. |
) ) |
2
| iii) Executive Officer, Temple Committee Pandharpur (which is merged in The Vitthal Rukminhee Temple Committee, Pandharpur in 1985) and (iv) Adminstrator to the Pandharpur Municipality, Pandharpur(Now The Chief Officer, Pandharpur Municipality,Pandharpur) |
) ) ) ) ) ) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| 3) | Narayan Dattatray Badave, Occ.: Badavepana Residing at Badave Galli, Pandharpur-413304 District – Solapur. |
) ) |
) |
| 4) | Manohar Vitthal Badave, Occ.: Badavepana Residing at Badave Galli, Pandharpur-413304 District – Solapur. |
) ) ) |
|
| Respondent No.3 and 4 are self-joined Defendants in the Suit on behalf of themselves and all Badaves. Since both are deceased, notice to be served on their representative Badave a Member of the Vitthal Rukminhee Temple Committee, Pandharpur |
) ) ) ) ) |
) | |
| 5) RES |
Govind Devaba Nimbalakar, Aged about 68 yr Occupation – Business and agriculture Residing at Near Sahasra Vishnu Mandir Teen Raste, At & Po. Shegaum-Dumala Taluka Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur (Self joined Plaintiff & Appellant No.2 But at present not interested in continuing the litigation) PONDENTS |
s ) ) ) ) ) ).. |
) ) |
Mr Bheemacharya Vyankatesh Varakhedakar – Petitioner, present in person.
3
Mr V.S. Masurkar, Government Pleader, for the State.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 19TH MARCH 2009 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 23RD MARCH 2009
JUDGMENT (PER SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.)
This Public Interest Litigation has been brought by Mr Bheemacharya Vyankatesh Varakhedakar, legal heir of late Mr Venkatesh Pradyumnacharya Varakhedakar, the Petitioner, with the prayer the records and proceedings of the cases referred in the Petition be called for and Review Petition Stamp No. 28623 of 2004 in Second Appeal No. 521 of 1983 be withdrawn from the Court of Mr. Justice A.S. Oka and be placed for decision in accordance with law before any other Bench.
4
possessess the right of management in view of Articles 25, 26 and 29 of the Constitution of India and according to him his fundamental rights were being infringed. The Suit was based with reference to the provisions of the Pandharpur Temple Act, 1973 and, therefore, the Suit for declaration was filed. Reference to other facts including the properties of the temple was also made and the leave for injunction was also claimed against the Defendants in the Suit. This Suit came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court. First Appeal was also dismissed by the learned District Court. Second Appeal preferred by the Petitioner was admitted vide order dated 11th October 1983 on the question framed therein. This Appeal was finally heard by the learned Single Judge and came to be dismissed on 26th July 2004. Thereafter, the present Petitioner filed a Review Petition being Review Petition No. 11 of 2005 seeking review of the order of dismissal of the Second Appeal by the learned Single Judge. This Review Petition, as per record, was fixed from time to time for admission and there the Petitioner raised the contention that Review Petition should be heard by another Court. Taking note of this, the learned Single Judge had placed the matter before the Chief Justice,
5
wherein it was directed that the Review Petition may be heard by the said Court as per the High Court Appellate Side Rules. Thereafter, the Review Petition was again adjourned. The Petitioner submitted his written submissions and the Review Petition also came to be dismissed vide order dated 24th October 2008. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23rd February 2005 passed in the present Public Interest Litigation directed that the Review Petition be listed before the same Judge which passed the order. After passing of the order dated 24th October 2008 dismissing the Review Petition, the Petitioner has filed the present application for listing the Public Interest Litigation and for transfer of the Review Petition from the Bench of the learned Single Judge.
6
a circumscribed manner and not to keep on filing frivolous Petitions. The Supreme Court in the case of Janta Dal vs H.S. Chaudhary , (1992) 4 SCC 305 , had stated that the jurisdiction of public interest litigation can hardly be invoked for personal gain and/or private profit and/or oblique consideration and it is intended not to encourage vexatious litigation.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD J.
uday/judgment/pil18-05
1 issue framed by the court
Whether filing of Public Interest Litigation for personal gain regarding temple management rights constitutes an abuse of process of the Court and is maintainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Janta Dal vs H.S. ChaudharyDistinguished¶21
Janta Dal vs H.S. Chaudhary, (1992) 4 SCC 305 · Who else cites this
Bheemacharya Vyankatesh Varakhedakar
Government of Maharashtra
Swatanter Kumar
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
