Dismissed

Jitendra Narendra Shende v. Collector, Amravati Division, Amravati

Bombay HC14 Feb 2012PIL/53/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case is described as an abuse of PIL powers to demolish a school building and evict a tenant via a PIL despite a pending civil suit regarding rent and possession. The Court held that the PIL did not expand to this inter se dispute and dismissed it with costs.

What did the court decide?

Costs of Rs.25,000 directed to be paid by petitioners to the respondent society.

Jitendra Narendra Shende Vs Collector, Amravati… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

P.I.L. No.53/10

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 53 of 2010

¶5

JITENDRA NARENDRA SHENDE AND ANOTHER VERSUS

¶6

THE COLLECTOR, AMRAVATI AND OTHERS

¶7

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

¶9

Mr. N. D. Khamborkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. D. Kothari, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 Mr. M. K. Sable, Advocate for respondent no.3 Mr. F. T. Mirza, Advocate for respondent no.5 Mr. M. D. Samel, Advocate for respondent no.6

¶10

CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 14^th FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶12

This case is a glaring example which shows as to how the PIL powers are misused by the litigants.

¶13

By this Public Interest Litigation petition, the petitioner no.1, who is a businessman and petitioner no.2, who is in service, have prayed that the school building, which is being run by respondent no.6 society, is in dilapidated condition and the same may be demolished as it may cause danger to the passers by. The petitioners have joined the landlady of the premises as respondent no.5 to this petition. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the school authority that respondent no.5-landlord has already filed a suit for ejectment and possession, which is pending before the Civil Court at Amravati. The respondent no.5 has supported the claim of the

¶14

P.I.L. No.53/10

¶15

¶16

petitioners as the respondent no.5 has filed a civil application that the appropriate rent of the premises in question may be fixed in this Public Interest Litigation. According to us, the scope of the Public Interest Litigation is not required to be extended by deciding the inter se dispute between the parties. On behalf of the school authority, the photographs are also annexed to the petition.

¶17

In our view, the petitioners have filed this petition with a view to see that the premises may be demolished and the tenant can be evicted, even though a civil suit is pending between the parties. In this Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioners, respondent no.5-landlady now wants the rent to be increased, but that is not the scope of the P.I.L. The Public Interest Litigation is not, therefore, required to be entertained and the same deserves to be dismissed by imposing costs on the petitioners.

¶18

The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly dismissed.

¶19

The petitioners are directed to pay costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) to respondent no.6-society within a period of two weeks from today. If the costs are not so paid, it will be open for respondent no.6 to move this Court in this behalf so that appropriate action can be taken in the matter.

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

Diwale

Jitendra Narendra Shende v. Collector, Amravati Division, Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Narendra Shende v. Collector, Amravati Division, Amravati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Kailash S/O Devideen Japsare Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Shri Subhash S/O Deorao Langewar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Adarsha Nagar Nagarik Seva Samiti and Anr. Vs the Chief Officer, Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and 4 Ors.

manubhai p. vashi Vs state of maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Aparajit S/O Anandrao Ninawe Vs Dr. S.Y. Quraishi, Chief Election Commissioner, and Anr.

Doodh Utpadak Kalayankari Sangh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhausaheb Kachru Dube Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rakesh Rangrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Kailash S/O Devideen Japsare Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Goodearth Agrochem Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its Director Rahul Pramod Budhraja Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd. Thr. Its Chief General Manager and Anr.

M/S Anand Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its M.D. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and 3 Ors.

Vinayak S/O Laxman Uike Vs Additional Commissioner, Tribal Dev. Nagpur and 2 Ors.

Anand S/O Prakashchandra Agrawal Vs Gopal S/O Bhagirath Rathi and 5 Ors.

Smt. Mayadevi W/O Prakashchandra Agrawal Thr. P.O.A. Anand S/O Prakashchandra Agrawal Vs Gopal S/O Bhagirath Rathi (Karta of Huf) and Oths