Dismissed

Shri. Kishor Suryakant Mahadar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Oct 2014PIL/20/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rejected a PIL on the ground that petitioners were not entitled to maintain it due to lack of locus standi, given the first petitioner was personally interested in the subject matter and facts undermining litigation were disclosed in the reply. Issues on merits kept open.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation is rejected on the ground of lack of entitlement to maintain it.

Shri. Kishor Suryakant Mahadar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

RNG 1 pil20.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.20 OF 2014

¶3

Kishor Suryakant Mahadar & anr….. .. Petitioners

¶4

vs.

¶5

State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents

¶6

None for Petitioners Ms.M.P.Thakur AGP for Respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr.V.V.Salunkhe for Respondent nos.4 and 5. Mr.S.S.Salunkhe for Respondent nos. 7 to 18.

¶7

CORAM : A.S.OKA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ DATE : 7TH OCTOBER, 2014 PC.

¶8

None for Petitioner.

¶9

The grievance made in this Public Interest Litigation by the Petitioners is as regards allotment of lands bearing Gat No.319, 320/1/1 and 320/2 of village Mahalung Taluka Malshiras, District Solapur to the Respondent nos.7 to 18. An affidavit in reply has been filed by Mr.Bhanudas Mahadev Jamdade on behalf of the Respondent nos. 7 to 18 raising an objection to the locus of the Petitioners. On the last date, time was granted to the learned counsel for the Petitioners to take instructions on the averments made in the reply dated 14^th August,^, 2014. It is pointed out in the Reply

¶10

RNG 2 pil20.14

¶11

that of the 1^st Petitioner made an Application dated 30^th December, 2013 for allotment of the land bearing Gat No.320/2. Reliance is placed on the said Application, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit A to the reply. The 1^st Petitioner in the said Application had threatened to commit suicide on 30^th January, 2014. It is stated in the Reply that the 2^nd Petitioner is on the School Committee of Chandrashekar Agashe Vidyalaya and one of the contentions raised in the Petition is that there is no ground available for the said school. It appears from the Application dated 30^th December, 2013 that the 1^st Petitioner applied for allotment of land bearing Gat No.320/2.The 1^st Petitioner tried to pressurise the authorities by threatening them to commit self-immolation on 30^th January, 2014. Apart from the fact that the 1st Petitioner was personally interested in allotment of land subject matter of Public Interest Litigation, from the contents of the Application made by the 1^st Petitioner, it appears that he has no faith in the constitutional remedies and therefore, he had threatened to commit suicide.

¶12

The fact that the 1^st Petitioner applied for allotment of the said land ought to have been disclosed in the Petition. There is no denial of the averments made in the Reply of the 7^th to 18^th Respondents that the 2^nd

¶13

RNG 3 pil20.14

¶14

Petitioner is a member of the School Committee of Chandrashekar Agashe Vidyalaya.

¶15

Considering the statements made in the Affidavit in reply which are not disputed, , we are of the view that the Petitioners are not entitled to maintain the present Public Interest Litigation. Only on that ground, the Public Interest Litigation is rejected. However, we make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the issues raised by the Petitioners and all contentions on merits of the Petition are are kept open.

¶16

(G.S.KULKARNI, J) (A.S.OKA, J)

Shri. Kishor Suryakant Mahadar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Kishor Suryakant Mahadar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

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

Irgonda Melappa Biradar Vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

Irgonda Melappa Biradar Vs the Union of India through the Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

Ganesh M. Pardeshi Vs Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Gunratan Sadavarte Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Agriculture, through Secretary, and 3 Others Vs Rajendra S/O Ratanlal Tapar

The Court on Its Own Motion Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Another

Shrikrishna Vishnu Shete and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Sports, Mumbai and Others

Edwin Britto Vs the Municipal Commissioner and 5 Ors.

Krishnath Ashok Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Balgonda Jangonda Patil Vs Union of India, Thorugh Dept of Petroleum, Navi Delhi and Ors.

Federation of Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Association Vs State of Maharahstra and Anr.

Shri. Kishor Suryakant Mahadar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Vikramsingh Jaysingrao Ghatge Vs the Municipal Council, Kagal and Ors.

Parshuram Bhagoji Telange Vs Mr. Sachin Vasant Bhosale and Ors.