Dismissed

Shri. Chandrakant B. Dalvi and Ors. v. Dy. Registrar (C.S.), Ratnagiri and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2014PIL/125/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by owners of land who sought direction for inquiry into a cooperative society acquired for their land. The Court held the petition unmaintainable as the petitioners suppressed the fact of a prior failed writ challenge to the same acquisition, thus failing to appear as bonafide litigants.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation is rejected as the petition is not entertainable due to suppression of material facts.

Shri. Chandrakant B. Dalvi and Ors. Vs Dy… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

pil-125.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.125 OF 2013

¶6

Shri Chandrakant B. Dalvi and Others. .. Petitioners Vs Dy. Registrar (C.S.), Ratnagiri, and Others. .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Mandar Limaye for the Petitioners. Smt. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8. Shri Sudhan Yeshwant Amare for Respondent No.6.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S.KULKARNI,JJ DATED : 4TH SEPTEMBER 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The

¶11

prayer clauses 1 to 3 of this Petition read thus:

¶12

“1. Directing the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to inquire and investigate into affairs of Respondent No.6 and furnish a detailed report to this Hon'ble Court as to what steps the Respondent No.6 Soveli Panchacroshi Sahakari Audyogic Sanstha Maryadit Mandangad has taken after procuring financial assistance of 20% of the total project cost.

¶13

Directing the Respondent No.5 to appoint Administrator on the Respondent No.6 Soveli Panchacroshi Sahakari Audyogic Sanstha Maryadit Mandangad forthwith and direct the Administrator to immediately inquire and investigate into the alleged misdeeds and misappropriations done by Respondent No.6 Soveli Panchacroshi Sahakari Audyogic Sanstha

ash

pil-125.13

Maryadit Mandangad as regards financial assistance provided by the State Government.

¶18

Directing the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to restore the lands in question to its original use.”

¶19

To the reply filed by the sixth Respondent, a copy of the judgment and order dated 1^st February 2002 in Writ Petition No.648 of 2002 has been annexed. It is not in dispute that the second Petitioner in the present Petition and some other Petitioners herein were the Petitioners in the said Writ Petition No.648 of 2002. Paragraph 2(i) of the order dated 1^st February 2002 reads thus:

¶20

“2. Challenging the proceedings in the acquisition of land in question details of which have been given in para of the writ petition. The learned Counsel raised two contentions:

¶21

(i) That acquisition of land for Respondent No.3 i.e. Soveli Panchkroshi Cooperative Industrial Society Ltd., which is a Cooperative Society registered under the Provision of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 is not the Acquisition for the public purpose. In this connection he has relied upon a Division bench Judgment of this Court in writ petition No.198 of 1982 (Chamapala Chhaganlal Lalwani v/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) dated 12^th August 1983, and

¶22

(ii) The issuance of Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the land Acquisition Act for Acquiring the land in question is malafide at the instance of Mr. Sunil Katghare, Urban Development Minister for State.”

¶23

3 pil-125.13

¶24

ash

¶25

Thus, some of the Petitioners filed a Writ Petition in this Court in the year 2002 for challenging the acquisition of the land subject matter of this Petition made for the benefit of the sixth Respondent Society. By the judgment and order dated 1^st February 2002, the challenge was negatived and the Petition was dismissed in limine. The fact that some of the Petitioners had filed the said Petition in respect of the land subject matter of this Petition for challenging the acquisition has been suppressed while filing the present Petition. The Petitioners are the owners of the land which is acquired for the benefit of the sixth Respondent. Some of the Petitioners had challenged the said acquisition which was made for benefit of the sixth Respondent. The said challenge failed in the year 2002. While filing this Petition, it was the duty of the Petitioners to disclose the said fact. As the said material fact has not been disclosed, the Petitioners cannot be termed as bonafide litigants. Therefore, this Public Interest Litigation at the instance of the Petitioners cannot be entertained. Accordingly, we reject this Public Interest Litigation. However, we make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the controversy raised in this Public Interest Litigation.

¶26

(G.S.KULKARNI, J)

Shri. Chandrakant B. Dalvi and Ors. v. Dy. Registrar (C.S.), Ratnagiri and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Chandrakant B. Dalvi and Ors. v. Dy. Registrar (C.S.), Ratnagiri 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

President Shri. Rupendra Shivalkar and Ors. Vs Chief Secretary, Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Haseeb Sher Khan Vs Mrs. Pratibha Vilas Patil and Ors.

President Shri. Rupendra Shivalkar and Ors. Vs Chief Secretary, Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Badelal Ramsingar Gupta @ Swachchhand Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Madanlal Trivedi Vs the Brihanmumbai Police Karmachari Sahakari Patsoutha Maryadit and Ors.

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dattatraya Kondaji Kale Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hemant Subhash Dalvi Vs State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.

Pandurang Rajaram Palave and Ors. Vs the Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Shri. Kishor K. Shah and Anr. Vs the Public Works Dept, through Executive Engineer and Anr.

Pandurang Rajaram Palave and Ors. Vs the Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Shri. Chandrakant B. Dalvi and Ors. Vs Dy. Registrar (C.S.), Ratnagiri and Ors.

Pi Industries Ltd, through Mr. Jhamak Nagda Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Agriculture, Govt of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ganesh Raghunath Nazirkar Vs the Shriram Devasthan Vishwashta Panchayat Samiti, Sudhagad Pali and Ors.