The Bombay High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the recruitment process for Town Planners where women candidates were not selected. The court held the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner was neither an applicant nor eligible, noting settled law barring PILs in service matters when positions are finalized.
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.
PILNo.1712012.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 171 OF 2012
Shri.Sunil Sukhdev Kate, Age. 40 Years, Occu.: Social Worker, R/o. Chinake, Tal. Sangola, Dist. Solapur. ... Petitioner V/s.
1/9
Gaikwad RD
PILNo.1712012.odt
Near Bhikamchand Jain Municipal Market, Administrative Building, Second Floor, Collector Office, Hingoli.
... Respondents
Mr.Machindra A. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner, Mrs.J.S.Pawar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr.S.V.Marne, for Respondent No.3, Mr.V.V.Salunkhe, for Respondent No.4, Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Sr.Counsel i/by Mr.Joel J. Carlos for Respondent No.5. Mr.Yuwraj D. Patil i/by Anand Sangvikar for Respondent Nos.6 and 7.
CORAM :NARESH H.PATIL and RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, JJ. DATED :11TH JUNE, 2014
JUDGMENT : (Per Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)
2/9
Gaikwad RD
PILNo.1712012.odt
3/9
Gaikwad RD
PILNo.1712012.odt
4/9
Gaikwad RD
PILNo.1712012.odt
“14. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
15. Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions. Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good. (See State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu, and A.P.State Financial Corp. vs. GAR Re-Rolling Mills). No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. (See Buddhi Kota Subbarao (Dr.) vs. K. Parasaran). Today people rush to Courts to file cases in profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must inspire confidence in Courts and among the public.
5/9
Gaikwad RD
PILNo.1712012.odt
16. As noted supra, a time has come to weed out the petitions, which though titled as public interest litigations are in essence something else. It is shocking to note that Courts are flooded with a large number of so called public interest litigations where even a minuscule percentage can legitimately be called public interest litigations. Though the parameters of public interest litigation have been indicated by this Court in a large number of cases, yet unmindful of the real intentions and objectives, Courts are entertaining such petitions and wasting valuable judicial time which, as noted above, could be otherwise utilized for disposal of genuine cases. Though in Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, this Court held that in service matters PILs should not be entertained, the inflow of so-called PILs involving service matters continues unabated in the Courts and strangely are entertained. The least the High Courts could do is to throw them out on the basis of the said decision. The other interesting aspect is that in the PILs, official documents are being annexed without even indicating as to how the petitioner came to possess them. In one case, it was noticed that an interesting answer was given as to its possession. It was stated that a packet was lying on the road and when out of curiosity the petitioner opened it, he found copies of the official documents. Whenever such frivolous pleas are taken to explain possession, the Court should do well not only to dismiss the petitions but also to impose exemplary costs. It would be desirable for the Courts to filter out the frivolous petitions and dismiss them with costs as afore-stated so that the message goes in the right direction that petitions filed with oblique motive do not have the approval of the Courts. ”
“9. It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is
6/9
Gaikwad RD
PILNo.1712012.odt
maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. In fact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, Saghir Ahmad v. State of U.P., Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B.. Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Assn. (2) v. S.C. Sekar.)
14. This Court has consistently cautioned the courts against entertaining public interest litigation filed by unscrupulous persons, as such meddlers do not hesitate to abuse the process of the court. The right of effective access to justice, which has emerged with the new social rights regime, must be used to serve basic human rights, which purport to guarantee legal rights and, therefore, a workable remedy within the framework of the judicial system must be provided. Whenever any public interest is invoked, the court must examine the case to ensure that there is in fact, genuine public interest involved. The court must maintain strict vigilance to ensure that there is no abuse of the process of court and that, “ordinarily meddlesome bystanders are not granted a Visa”. Many societal pollutants create new problems of non-redressed grievances, and the court should make an earnest endeavour to take up those cases, where the subjective purpose of the lis justifies the need for it. (Vide: P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam, Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal and Amar Singh v. Union of India.)
7/9
Gaikwad RD
PILNo.1712012.odt
15. Even as regards the filing of a Public Interest Litigation, this Court has consistently held that such a course of action is not permissible so far as service matters are concerned. (Vide: Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, Dattaraj Natthuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra and Neetu v. State of Punjab.)
16. In Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal,this Court considered a similar issue and observed as under: (SCC p.54, para 38) “38.There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the Court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional Courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper-technical grounds... In other words, if the person is found to be not merely a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of his not having the locus standi.”(Emphasis added)
17. In view of the above, the law on the said point can be summarized to the effect that a person who raises a grievance, must show how he has suffered legal injury. Generally, a stranger having no right whatsoever to any post or property, cannot be permitted to intervene in the affairs of others. ”
8/9
Gaikwad RD
PILNo.1712012.odt
(RAVINDRA V.GHUGE,J.)
(NARESH H.PATIL, J.)
/9
Gaikwad RD
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a Public Interest Litigation filed by a non-applicant regarding service recruitment is maintainable.
Whether the recruitment process should be set aside due to non-selection of women candidates when posts are filled and regularized.
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the selection process as a social worker without being an applicant.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State of W.B.Explained¶37
(2004) 3 SCC 349 · Who else cites this
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.Explained¶44
(2013) 4 SCC 465 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri. Sunil Sukhdev Kate
The State of Maharashtra
The Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commissioner
Shri. Pralhad Namdeo Hogepatil
Arvind Nagappa Vagdurgat
Dilip Prabhakar Gheware
NARESH H.PATIL
RAVINDRA V.GHUGE
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
