The High Court of Bombay held that Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in service matters based on settled Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the PIL seeking directions on government servant transfers and quashing of a specific transfer order was dismissed without adjudication on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
pil 156.14.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.156 OF 2014
Mr. Pravin Murari Uttarkar ..Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Another ..Respondents
Mr. Sumit Kuthori and Mr. Harshad Sathe and Saurabh Batula,for the Petitioner.
Mr. V. B. Thadani, AGP,for Respondent No.1State.
CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 27, 2014.
P. C.:
In this Petition purported to be the Public Interest Litigation,
the Petitioner the practicing advocate at Solapur has prayed for following reliefs:
“a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of Mandamus or writ of direction or any other appropriate
Aswale 1/3
pil 156.14.sxw
writ and may be pleased to direct the Respondent no.1 State Government to strictly follow the rules and provisions relating to the transfer of the Government servants and further may be pleased to issue certain additional direction or guidelines in respect of the same as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit,
b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ of direction or any other appropriate writ and may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 23.06.2014 passed by the Respondent No.1(The State of Maharashtra) after verifying the validity and legality of the order dated 23.06.2014.”
2 It is obvious that, against Respondent No.1 (the State of Maharashtra), Public Interest Litigation has been filed on the basis of the allegation that order dated 23rd June, 2014 of transferring Respondent No.2 from the post of the Commissioner for Solapur Municipal Corporation was illegal and actuated by political considerations. As per the settled legal position, Public Interest Litigation is not maintainable in service matters (vide Supreme Court decisions in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. Vs. Jitendra
Aswale 2/3
pil 156.14.sxw
Kumar Mishra & Ors. AIR 1999 S. C. 114 , Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. AIR 2004 S.C. 280, Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2005 S.
C. 540 ) .
this case.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Aswale 3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Public Interest Litigation is maintainable in a matter concerning the transfer of a government servant and allegations of political motivation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors.Referred¶19
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu & Ors. Vs. Jitendra Kumar Mishra & Ors. AIR 1999 S. C. 114 · Who else cites this
Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.Referred¶22
Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. AIR 2004 S.C. 280 · Who else cites this
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Referred¶22
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2005 S.C. 540 · Who else cites this
Pravin Murari Uttarkar
The State of Maharashtra
MOHIT S. SHAH
B. P. COLABAWALLA
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
