Dismissed

Kiran Santaji Jadhav v. Hon'Ble Cabinet Minister for Revenue and Forests Department and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jul 2014PIL/36/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding land allocation for education, the Court disposed of the petition as the impugned order was withdrawn. The Court kept the locus standi objection open, granted the respondent three months to challenge a previous order, and instructed parties to exercise caution in media reporting.

What did the court decide?

No action or steps to be taken on the basis of the order dated 21st August, 2006 for a period of three months from today.

Kiran Santaji Jadhav Vs Hon'Ble Cabinet Minister for… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2014)

903-pil-36-09.doc

Ladda-PA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 36 of 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No.60 of 2013.

Kiran Santaji Jadhav

..Petitioner.

Versus

Hon'ble Cabinet Minister for Revenue

¶11

and Forests Department and others

¶12

..Respondents.

¶13

Mr Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner and applicant in C.A.

¶14

Mr V.P. Malvankar, AGP “A” Panel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7. Mr A.A. Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate a/with Mr Shardul Singh & Mr

¶15

Mukul Taly i/by S. Mohomedbhai & Co. for Respondent No.8.

¶16

CORAM : A.S. OKA AND A.S.CHANDURKAR,JJ. DATE : 23rd July, 2014.

¶17

P.C.:-

¶18

The communication dated 23^rd July,2014 addressed by the State Government to the District Collector, Nashik is placed on record which records that the impugned order dated 22^nd June,2007 passed by the State Government has been withdrawn.

¶19

The learned Senior Counsel for the eighth respondent has

1 / 4

903-pil-36-09.doc

raised a serious objection to the locus of the petitioner to file this petition. He has invited our attention to the affidavit filed by the 8^th respondent on the aspect of the locus of the petitioner. His submission is that the State Government has acted upon the prima facie observations made by this Court in a petition filed at the instance of the petitioner. He pointed out the manner in which the petition has been filed by the petitioner and submitted that the petition ought not to have been entertained.

¶24

We must note here that the order dated 22^nd June,2007 passed by the State Government is admittedly without jurisdiction as the appellate power under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 has been invoked by the State Government for setting aside its own decision. In the clauses 3 and 4 of our order dated 7^th July,2014, this Court has recorded prima facie findings and it is observed in paragraph 5 of the said order that even if the objection to the locus of the petitioner is upheld, the petition will have to be treated as a Suo motu petition.

¶25

Now, the impugned order has been withdrawn. As this petition deserves to be treated as a Suo motu Petition, it is not necessary for us to decide the objection raised by the 8^th respondent regarding the locus of the petitioner and the said issue will have to be

2 / 4

903-pil-36-09.doc

left open. The learned Senior Counsel for 8^th respondent states that on the basis of the impugned order which is withdrawn, the 8^th respondent has taken several steps. He states that a school has been constructed and there are a large number of students taking education in the said school.

¶30

As the impugned order has been withdrawn, it is obvious that the 8^th respondent can always adopt appropriate remedy for challenging the order dated 21^st August,2006 which was set aside by the impugned order.

¶31

To enable the 8^th respondent to adopt appropriate proceedings, a protection will have to be granted to the 8^th respondent for a limited period considering larger interests of the students who are taking education.

¶32

The learned Senior Counsel for the 8^th respondent made a grievance regarding news items published in Daily Loksatta on 17^th July, 2014 and 22^nd July,2014. He submits that there is an apprehension that the newspaper reports have been published at the instance of the petitioner whose locus has been seriously disputed. Considering what we have recorded earlier, we are not going into this controversy. However, we must add here that all parties to a litigation and especially the petitioners in Public Interest Litigations have to

3 / 4

903-pil-36-09.doc

show a great deal of circumspection while reporting to media as to what transpires in the Courts during the course of hearing of the litigations.

¶37

Hence, we dispose of the Public Interest Litigation in the light of withdrawal of the impugned order dated 22^nd June,2007.

¶38

We make it clear that it will be open for the 8^th respondent to challenge the order dated 21^st August,2006 by adopting proceedings in accordance with law. All contentions of merits as regards the challenge to said order are kept open.

¶39

To enable the 8^th respondent to adopt appropriate proceedings, we direct that no action or steps shall be taken on the basis of the order dated 21^st August, 2006 for a period of three months from today.

¶40

We make it clear that we have not made any final adjudication on the objection raised by the 8^th respondent to the locus of the petitioner and all contentions in that behalf are kept open.

¶41

Civil Application No. 60 of 2013 does not survive and the same is disposed of.

¶42

(A.S.CHANDURKAR,J). (A.S. OKA,J)

¶43

4 / 4

Kiran Santaji Jadhav v. Hon'Ble Cabinet Minister for Revenue and Forests Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Santaji Jadhav v. Hon'Ble Cabinet Minister for Revenue and Forests Department and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rail Parishad (N.G.O.), through President, Shri. Bipin M. Gandhi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gajanan Vithalrao Boche Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ameet Bhaskar Satam Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Public Prosecutor and Ors.

Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, through Chairman, Mr. Shirish Vasudeo Deshpande Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Railways

Sonal S. Khanolkar and Anr. Vs Union of India, through Director, Dept of Personnel and Training and Ors.

Shri. Gajanan Damodar Shelar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shashikant Anant Adhyapak and Ors. Vs the City Engineer - Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Oneil Kinny and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gram Panchayat, Chale, through Sarpanch Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Various Dept and Ors.

Smt. Shantabai Prakash Kambale Vs Mallikarjun Bassappa Avaji and Ors.

Suvarna Laxman Shinde Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Mallikarjun Shivkaran Shegaonkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Yuvraj Vasantrao Desai Vs the Dy. Collector (Caste Certificate), Rajeshri Shahu Suvidha Kendra and Anr.

Shambhuraj Shivajirao Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.