Harmitsingh Saini and Anr. Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits

¶1

:1:

¶2

srp.

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 1951 OF 2009.

¶5

 Shri. Harmitsingh Saini & Another. ..Petitioners.

¶6

 Versus.

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra & others. ..Respondents.

¶8

---

¶9

 Mr. M. S. Karnik for the petitioner.

¶10

 Mrs. Jyoti Pawar, Additional Govrnment Pleader for
 respondent nos. 1 & 4.

¶11

 Mr. A. S. Rao for respondent nos. 2 & 5.

¶12

 Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar along with Mr. M. S.
 Kamthekar for respondent no.3.

¶13

CORAM: S. B. MHASE &
D.B.BHOSALE, JJ.
DATE: February 18, 2009.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

 1. Heard.

¶16

 2. The petitioner is in transport business and

¶17

 claims to be an active social worker. Petitioner no.2

¶18

 is also a businessman and social worker. Earlier
 petitioner no.2 had filed a Public Interest Litigation
 in respect of the very same post, namely, the post of
 Assistant Director of Town Planning to be appointed in
 the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation. That public
 interest litigation was not entertained and dismissed by

¶19

:2:

¶20

 this Court as not maintainable as Public Interest

¶21

 Litigation. However, while declining to interfere in
 that Petition, the State was directed to look into the
 facts averred in the Writ Petition and act in accordance
 with law.

¶22

 3. What is important to be noted is that for a
 post to be filled in, namely, the post of the Assistant
 Director of Town Planning with which the petitioner is
 no way concerned with and is not entitled to be
 appointed on the said post. How and in what manner the
 said appointments are to be made is a matter to be
 considered by the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation
 and also by the State Government. Still this Court
 while dismissing the aforesaid Public Interest
 Litigation has observed that the State should look into
 it, and we find that the State has sufficiently
 redressed the grievance of the petitioner. Inspite of
 that the petitioner has filed this petition, and one
 more petition filed by the present petitioners on the
 same subject matter making grievance of the subsequent
 developments is pending in this Court.

¶23

 4. In fact on going through the record we find
 that after the order was passed in the Public Interest
 Litigation, the Government has passed the order that the
 charge should be given to Mr. Kawale and since the
 charge was not received by Kawale the, State Government

¶24

:3:

¶25

 has issued further directions in this respect. As per
 the directions given in the Public Interest Litigation
 the State is looking into the matter. Under these
 circumstances, the petitioner has no room to make
 grievance against the respondents more specifically
 against respondent no.3 against whom several allegations
 have been made by the petitioner. However it appears
 that the petitioners are trying to settle the personal
 score against respondent no.3 and, therefore, repeatedly
 they are coming to this Court by filing the petitions
 for similar reliefs.

¶26

 5. Now an attempt is made before this Court to
 submit that even though the petitioner has no locus
 standi in the matter, he is coming to the Court as
 informant of the Court to point out the illegality
 committed by the respondent. In support, the learned
 counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of
 the Apex Court reported in 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 1 in the

¶27

matter of Raju Ramsingh Vasave v/s. Mahesh Deorao
Bhivapurkar and others. We have gone through that

¶28

 judgment especially paragraph 31 thereof. No doubt the
 Apex Court has taken cognizance of such writ petitions
 not as Public Interest Litigation but as Public Law
 Litigation. However, this aspect appears to have been
 considered by this Court when earlier the Public
 Interest Litigation was rejected. It was also open for
 the petitioner to point out this judgment to that Court

¶29

:4:

¶30

 and to convince that Court to take cognizance of the
 said petition. Even assuming that petition was tenable
 as public law litigation, it is to be noted that while
 rejecting earlier writ petition the Court has given
 those direction which could have been given considering
 the petition as public law litigation. Therefore, in
 any view of the matter present petition is not tenable
 in law.

¶31

 6. What we find is that the process of law in

¶32

 the name of Public Interest Litigation or Public Law
 Litigation is being misused by the petitioners. We do
 not find any substance in the petition. Since the
 Government is looking after the appointment to the said
 post, as directed in the disposed of Public Interest
 Litigation, we find that this Court’s machinery should
 not be used by the citizens for settling personal
 vendetta, and therefore, to have a deterrence as against
 such litigations we desire to impose cost of Rs.25,000/-
 on both the petitioners to be paid by them jointly
 and/or severally. Cost to be paid by the petitioners in
 this Court within a period of two weeks from today. If
 the cost is not paid within two weeks from today, the
 Collector, Thane is directed to recover the same from
 the petitioners as arrears of land revenue within a
 period of six weeks thereafter.

¶33

(D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)

¶34

:5:

Harmitsingh Saini and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary - Urban Development Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmitsingh Saini and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary - Urban Development Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhamchandra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Pune and Anr.

Ambika Mitra Mandal Vs Deputy Education Officer (Secondary) Zilla Parishad, Nasik and Ors.

Khandve Dilip Sadashiv Vs Central Governemnt of India, Behlaf of Law Minister Saheb and or S

Jagdish Songya Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dhondiba Kahanu Dighe Vs the Land Acquisition Officer (No 17) Pune and Anr.

Bhau Dagdu Watkar Vs the Land Acquisition Officer (No 17) Pune and Anr.