Disposed

Bijaykuamr Banmali Panigrahi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2012CAW/243/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court observed that the Advocate General failed to record a reasoned opinion on the genuineness of the respondent's proceedings when declining to invoke the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation Act. The court quashed the communication and remanded the matter for reconsideration with notice to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Communication of the Advocate General quashed and application remanded for reconsideration with notice to Respondent No. 3.

Bijaykuamr Banmali Panigrahi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bombay HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CAW.243.2012.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 243 OF 2012 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 699 OF 2012

¶4

Bijaykumar Banmali Panigrahi :- Applicant versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. :- Respondents

¶5

Mr. R. B. Paranjape, with Mr. J. D. Khairnar, for the Petitioner. Mr. Samir Patil, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 present in person.

¶6

CORAM:-A.M.KHANWILKAR &
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.

¶7

DATED:- OCTOBER 4, 2012

¶8

P.C.:-

¶9

This Application is filed as a consequence of the communication issued under the signature of the then Advocate General, dated 8^th November, 2011, on the application preferred by the Applicant, dated 5^th September, 2011, for invoking provisions of Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971 against Respondent No. 3. The communication reads thus:-

¶10

“Sir,

¶11

I have perused your application and considered the various cases listed in Para-4 thereof. From a reading of your application and considering the orders passed by the Courts, I am not satisfied that this is a fit case for me to adopt proceedings under the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971 against Mr. J. P. Shoke.”

Page 1 of 4

J.V.Salunke,PA

CAW.243.2012.doc

The argument of the Applicant is that the Applicant

¶16

had produced sufficient material to indicate that the Respondent No. 3 was in the habit of filing frivolous and vexatious proceedings against his superior officers and Government officials. Reference has been made to at least 11 such cases. According to the Applicant, most of the cases filed by the Respondent No. 3 have been dismissed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the weighty material produced by the Applicant, the Advocate General has declined to invoke the provisions of the Act of 1971, merely on the statement occurring in the communication that he was not satisfied that it was a fit case to invoke the said provisions.

¶17

We have perused the communication as well as the material produced by the Applicant before the Advocate General. Considering the volume of material produced and reference made to several proceedings, it would have been appropriate if some opinion was recorded one way or the other as to the genuineness or otherwise of the respective proceeding, instead of a general observation made that, considering the orders passed by the courts, it was not a fit case to invoke provisions of the Act of 1971.

Page 2 of 4

J.V.Salunke,PA

CAW.243.2012.doc

On one hand we have the Applicant asserting that 11 cases instituted by the Respondent No. 3 have mostly been dismissed and answered against the Respondent No. 3. On the other hand, Respondent No. 3, who is appearing in person, is at pains to point out that the Applicant has not made reference to the subsequent decisions of the Superior Courts, which have upheld the plea of the Respondent No. 3 and reversed the opinion of the concerned Court, dismissing the proceedings instituted by him. This exercise ought to have been undertaken by the Statutory Authority under the provisions of the Act of 1971 and it must be reflected in the opinion to be given on the Application filed by third party, such as the Applicant before this Court, so that the Court would have the advantage of the reasons which weighed with the Authority in rejecting the proposal for invoking provisions of Act of 1971. Merely mentioning that “considering the orders passed by the Court”, in our opinion, is not enough.

¶22

Accordingly, we relegate the Applicant, before the Advocate General for reconsideration of the Application filed by the Applicant, which, we hope, will be done by giving opportunity

Page 3 of 4

J.V.Salunke,PA

CAW.243.2012.doc

to Respondent No. 3. All questions are left open. Application

¶27

disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

¶29

Page 4 of 4

¶30

J.V.Salunke,PA

Bijaykuamr Banmali Panigrahi v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijaykuamr Banmali Panigrahi 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

Shri. Dhondiram Pratap Shinde Vs Palus Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, through President, Kishor Dnyandeo Patil

Smt. Ellakanni Widow of Muthuraman Varadraj and Ors. Vs the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation, Kalyan and Ors.

Dhiryasheel Vijay Sutar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sunil Kumar Bavdhankar Vs Shri. Kashinath Vitthal Sodmise and Ors.

Anil Ganpatrao Gujar Vs Food Corporation of India, through General Manager and Ors.

Aadhar Mahila Vikas Sanstha Vs All India Council for Technical Education (Aicte) and Ors.