Dismissed

Brashtachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC6 Oct 2010PIL/3/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation alleging violations of development regulations. The petition was rejected in limine because the second petitioner, representing the Trust, had been removed for corruption and sought to be replaced by another individual also removed for similar reasons, calling the petition's motives extraneous.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed in limine; Chamber Summons No. 219 was dismissed; PIL No. 48 of 2010 was delinked and adjourned.

Brashtachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2010)

-: 1 :-

PIL-3/2006

srp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 3 OF 2006.

¶6

Brashtachar Nirmoolan Santhatana, Mumbai & Anr. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others.

¶7

..Petitioners.

¶8

..Respondents.

¶9

Mr. V. P. Patil for Manav Joshi (petitioner no.2.). Ms. Shakuntala Joshi i/b Yogesh Ametha for the petitioner. Mr. K. K. Singhavi, Sr. Counsel with Ms. S. Ajitkumar for R-2. Mr. D. J. Khambatta, Sr. Counsel i/b J. Sagar and Associates for R-3. Mr. Uday Bobde i/b Y. R. Shah for R-4. Ms. J. N. Pandhi i/b Khona & Keyser for R-5. Mr. D. A. Nalawade, GP for R-1.

¶10

Coram : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ. Date : October 6, 2010.

¶11

P. C. :

¶12

The 1^st petitioner is Brashtachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana, Mumbai.

¶13

The 2^nd petitioner claims to be the President of the 1^st petitioner-Trust. In

¶14

this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have alleged that respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5 have violated the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991, the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1956. It is alleged that the 2^nd respondent, i.e., the Municipal Corporation has helped the said

-: 2 :-

PIL-3/2006

respondents.

We are informed that the 2^nd petitioner has been removed by the Trust on the charges of corruption by their resolution dated 8/11/2009. Surprisingly, it is only on 16/7/2010, that the Chamber Summons being Chamber Summons No. 219 of 2010 was taken out by the petitioners praying that the petitioners may be permitted to delete the 2^nd petitioner and in his place they may be allowed to insert the name of Mr. Pakhare, as the President of the Trust. Mr. V. P. Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf for the 2^nd petitioner states that Mr. Pakhare was earlier removed from the Trust. The petitioners have not explained why Mr. Pakhare was removed from the Trust. It is also not understood as to why if he was once removed he is being brought back on record in place of the 2^nd petitioner. The question is whether the 2^nd petitioner who has been removed from the Trust on the ground of corruption can come to this Court by filing Public Interest Litigation, making allegations of corruption against others. As if this is not sufficient, now, the petitioners want the 2^nd petitioner to be replaced by Mr. Pakhare, who was also earlier removed by the Trust. Indeed a very sorry state of affairs is prevailing in the Trust.

¶19

In State of Uttaranchal vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Ors [2010(1) Scale 492], the Supreme Court has after considering the

¶20

-: 3 :-

¶21

PIL-3/2006

¶22

relevant cases on the point, gave directions to preserve the purity and sanctity of the public interest litigation. We may quote the relevant directions of the Supreme Court.

¶23

(1) The courts must encourage genuine and bona fide“

¶24

PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.

¶25

(2) Instead of every individual judge devising his own procedure for dealing with the public interest litigation, it would be appropriate for each High Court to properly formulate rules for encouraging the genuine PIL and discouraging the PIL filed with oblique motives. Consequently, we request that the High Courts who have not yet framed the rules, should frame the rules within three months. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to ensure that a copy of the Rules prepared by the High Court is sent to the Secretary General of this court immediately thereafter.

¶26

(3) The courts should prima facie verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a P.I.L.

¶27

(4) The court should be prima facie satisfied regarding the correctness of the contents of the petition before entertaining a PIL.

¶28

(5) The court should be fully satisfied that substantial public interest is involved before entertaining the petition.

¶29

(6) The court should ensure that the petition which involves larger public interest, gravity and urgency must be given priority over other petitions.

¶30

(7) The courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation.

¶31

(8) The court should also ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs or by adopting similar novel methods to curb frivolous petitions and the

¶32

-: 4 :-

¶33

PIL-3/2006

¶34

petitions filed for extraneous considerations.”

¶35

Thus the Supreme Court has cautioned the High Courts that the credentials of the petitioner should be verified before entertaining a public interest litigation. The Supreme Court has further observed that the Court should ensure that the petitions filed by busybodies for extraneous and ulterior motives must be discouraged by imposing exemplary costs. Having regard to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, in our opinion, the present petition must be dismissed in limine .

¶36

We must note that so far as allegations made against respondent nos. 3, 4 & 5 are concerned, the Corporation has filed affidavits stating that the said respondents are not guilty of any violations of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991, the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1956. However, since we have not gone into the allegations, we do not what to express any opinion on those allegations. Insofar as respondent no.3 is concerned,

¶37

another Public Interest Litigation being PIL No. 48 of 2010 is filed by one Sampret Singh, making similar allegations. That petition will have to be heard separately. Therefore, we again make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion as to whether the allegations made against

¶38

PIL-3/2006

¶39

-: 5 :-

¶40

respondent no.3 are true or not in this order. Suffice it to state that the present petition cannot be entertained, because the 2^nd petitioner has been removed from the Trust on the ground of corruption. The petition is dismissed.

¶41

In view of the dismissal of the PIL, Chamber Summons No. 219 of 2010, taken out in this PIL does not survive and the same is therefore dismissed.

¶42

Public Interest Litigation No. 48 of 2010 is delinked from this

¶43

PIL and is adjourned to 27/10/2010.

¶44

(R.V. More, J.) (Smt. Ranjana Desai,J.)

Brashtachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brashtachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and 4 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

M/S. Resources of Aviation Redressal Association Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Ms. Jyotiben B. Bawisi Vs Vardhan Builders and 4 ORS.53

Onkarnath Lalchandji Karva vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Harshad Gawade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Mohd. Khalid Mukhtar Ahamad Vs Municipal Corporation for the City of Bhiwandi Nizampur and

Bhartiya Kisan Sangh and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Prajasattak Samajik Seva Smastha Vs Superintendent of Police and Ors.

Prajasattak Samajik Seva Smastha Vs Superintendent of Police and Ors.

Mahesh Tukaram Vengurlekar and 2 Ors. Vs the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 4 Ors.

Arvind Ramchandra Tepole Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and 2 Ors.

Rushabh Builders Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Ramboz Mitra Mandal Vs Mhada and 3 Ors.

Fahim Arshad Ansari S/O Mohd. Yusuf Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Smt. Abhilasha Anil Kavale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others