Dismissed

Shri Padmakar Janardan Kamble and Anr. v. Shri. Balwant Moreshwar Purandare and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Aug 2015PIL/149/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL challenged the State's decision to confer the Maharashtra Bhushan Award on Balwant Moreshwar Purandare alleging non-compliance with eligibility criteria. The court dismissed the petition, finding it did not qualify as a PIL due to improper timing and lack of public interest.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited with the Secretary, Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.

Shri Padmakar Janardan Kamble and Anr… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2015)

pilst-22306

pdp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION STAMP NO.22306 OF 2015

¶5

Shri Padmakar Janardan Kamble and anr.

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Shri Balwant Moreshwar Purandare and ors. .. Respondents

¶9

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 22482 OF 2015 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION STAMP NO. 22306 OF 2015

¶10

Madhav Narayan Ghule and anr. .. Interveners In the matter of Padmakar Janardan Kamble and anr. .. Petitioners Vs. Babasaheb Moreshwar Purandare and anr. .. Respondents

¶11

Mr. Shekhar Jagtap a/w Mr. Narendra Sharma for petitioners. Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for respondent no.1.

¶12

Mr. Anil Singh, Acting Advocate General a/w Mr. A. B. Vagyani, Govt. Pleader a/w Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for State. Mr. Ganesh Sovani for interveners.

¶13

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & S. B. SHUKRE, JJ. AUGUST 19, 2015. P.C.

¶14

The petitioners have filed this petition as a Public Interest

¶15

¶16

pilst-22306

¶17

Litigation. It is disclosed that petitioner no.1 is in service and petitioner no.2 is an agriculturist. They are involved in certain social activities at their respective places and are trying to contribute in the development of the society with their limited means and abilities. The petitioners are questioning the decision of the respondent nos.2 and 3 in granting Maharashtra Bhushan Award in favour of respondent no.1 - Shri Balwant Moreshwar Purandare.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that

¶19

the meeting held by the Committee to recommend the name of a person from amongst the shortlisted ones for conferring the award was not chaired by Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State. By referring to the eligibility criteria set out in the Government Resolution, it was submitted that the respondent no.1 does not fulfill the said criteria. By referring to the minutes of the meeting held on 22/4/2015, it was submitted that the discussion, which took place in the meeting, supports the contention of the petitioners that the criteria other than the required one under the Government Resolution weighed in favour of the respondent no.1. One of such consideration, according to the learned counsel, was the age of the petitioner.

¶20

¶21

pilst-22306

¶22

The learned counsel submits that the decision reached by the State in conferring award on respondent no.1 is arbitrary in nature. There

¶23

is non application of mind by the Committee and the State in deciding to confer the award on respondent no.1. Learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Institute of Law, Chandigarh and ors. vs. Neeraj Sharma and ors. [(2015) 1 SCC 720] .

¶24

The learned Acting Advocate General submitted that today at 5.30 p.m. the State Government in a function organized for the said purpose would be conferring the award of “Maharashtra Bhushan” upon respondent no.1. The name of respondent no.1 was recommended by the Committee in its meeting on 22/4/2015. The said decision of the State was published widely in the media from 1/5/2015 onwards. This petition preferred at the crucial time is a deliberate move to gain publicity. In the submission of the learned Acting AG, the petition cannot be termed as a Public Interest Litigation but it shall be dismissed as it is an attempt to create a publicity stunt. On merits, the learned Acting AG submitted that decision to confer the award on respondent no.1 is a policy matter and decision of the State in tune with the Government Resolution and the recommendations of the constituted Committee for the said purpose. The

¶25

¶26

pilst-22306

¶27

petitioners have not challenged the Government Resolution issued in this behalf. After having detail discussion, the Committee recommended the name of respondent no.1. The Committee was aware of the work done by respondent no.1 in last several decades and taking note of the same, the Committee had recommended the name of respondent no.1. The learned Acting AG has referred to para 8 of the affidavit-in-examination-in-chief filed by respondent no.1 – Shri Babasaheb alias Balwantrao Moreshwarrao Purandare filed in Special Civil Suit No.839 of 2006. The said para reads as under:-

¶28

“8. I have written 30 books for adults and 10 books for children on the Maratha history. From the erstwhile Government of Bombay my book named as `Raja Shiva Chhatrapti' has won the first prize. In 1963 Late Rajamata Sumitraraje Bhosale conferred a title upon me as “Shivashahir”, in view of my contribution in the field of history. In 1976 Govt. of Maharashtra was pleased to award first prize to my book named as “Maharaj”. I have received number of National and International awards, felicitations and honours. The galaxy of the dignitaries cutting across their parties, philosophies and ideologies have admired and appreciated my work. Such personalities do include Ex-Prime Minister of India Late Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Ex-President of India Late Mr. Gyani Zailsingh, Ex- Prime Minister of India

¶29

¶30

pilst-22306

¶31

Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee, Ex-Dy. Prime Minister Late Mr. Yashwantrao Chavan, Ex-Chief Ministers of Maharashtra Mr. Sharadrao Pawar and Mr.Manoharrao Joshi, Great figures from the world of Art, Literature and culture Late Mr. P. L. Deshpande, Late Mr. Acharya Atre, Prof. Mr. Narhar Kurundkar, Late Mr. G.D. Madgulkar, Late Mr. Bhalji Pendharkar, Principal Mr. Shivajirao Bhosale, Mr. G. N. Dandekar, Late Mr. Ranjeet Desai, Smt. Lata Mangeshkar, Dr. Vijay Bhatkar and countless others. I state that in relation to my work from time to time various newspapers have publicized the news, articles, columns and even the editorials and thereby have appreciated and admired my work. I have conducted shows of Janata Raja for more than 700 occasions in India and abroad. I have given lectures on history on more than 10,000 occasions in India and abroad on radio, television and auditoriums. I state that most of the times I have donated the income earned out my lectures to various public and charitable institutions and for the national cause. I have donated the entire income earned out of my lectures in America, Canada and Europe to a public Trust by name India Heritage Foundation. I have been working continuously and industriously on various projects related to history, culture and for the betterment of masses.”

¶32

The learned Acting AG has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ekta Shakti Foundation vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2006) 10

¶33

¶34

pilst-22306

¶35

SCC 337] . The learned Acting AG prayed for dismissal of petition with exemplary costs.

¶36

Mr. Uday Warujikar, learned counsel for respondent no.1 undertakes to file Vakalatnama in the course of the day. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 raised legal issues. It was submitted that the petition is not conforming the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. The petition, therefore, be rejected on this ground alone. The learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition with exemplary costs.

¶37

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the interveners in Civil Application Stamp No. 22482 of 2015, filed by Advocate Mr. Ganesh Sovani, which was tendered across the bar due to paucity of time. Learned counsel submits that the petition deserves dismissal. It does not conform the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 ( as amended on 10/7/2015).

¶38

We have heard the submissions advanced before us by the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. We have perused the record placed before us. By a Government Resolution dated 7/4/2015, the

¶39

¶40

pilst-22306

¶41

State constituted a Committee, headed by Hon'ble the Chief Minister of the State for selecting a person for conferring Maharashtra Bhushan Award. Annexure “A” to the said Government Resolution refers to the qualification and criteria entitling a person to be conferred upon such award. There are mainly three criteria enlisted therein. The first criteria refers to the person's service oriented work for continuous period of 20 years, the specialization and remarkable nature of work. The second criteria refers to a person domiciled for 15 years in the State of Maharashtra and third criteria refers that the person would get preference if he has been conferred with Padma Award.

¶42

The Committee constituted for the said purpose, conducted its meeting on 22/4/2015 at 11.30 a.m. The Hon'ble Minister, Cultural Affairs was present in the said meeting. In all eight members of the said Committee attended the meeting. The Committee decided and selected respondent no.1 unanimously for conferring “Maharashtra Bhushan Award” for the year 2015. It was recorded that for the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 the State did not confer the “Maharashtra Bhushan Award” on any person.

¶43

¶44

pilst-22306

¶45

In accordance with the policy of the State reflected in the Government Resolutions dated 27/5/2014 and 7/4/2015, the Committee after verifying the material placed before it, took a unanimous decision. We do not notice any procedural irregularities committed in the decision making process of the Committee. The collective wisdom of the Committee in taking a unanimous decision does not call for scrutiny by this court at the behest of the petitioners.

¶46

It is a matter of record that the Committee recommended name of respondent no.1 for conferring the highest civilian award of the State on respondent no.1 – Shri Balwant Moreshwar Purandare. The State announced the decision on 30/4/2015 and the said decision was widely published in the print media on 2/5/2015 and onwards.

¶47

We find substance in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the petitioners having ample time at their disposal for raising the issue in respect of the subject matter of the petition, but for the reasons best known to the petitioners, they decided to approach this court by filing Public Interest Litigation at the final stages. We are of the view that the petition cannot be considered as pro-bono-publico one. The petitioners have failed to establish that they espouse a cause for public

¶48

¶49

pilst-22306

¶50

or general interest by which legal rights or liabilities are affected. In this view, the petition is not filed in consonance with the letter and spirit of Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010. Needless to mention that substantial time of this court was also consumed during the course of hearing by the petitioners.

¶51

It is clarified that during the course of hearing, the subject matter of the writings of the respondent no.1 were not discussed. We are not expressing any views on the subject matter of the writings of the respondent no.1.

¶52

There is no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only). The cost shall be deposited within four weeks with the Secretary, Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.

¶53

In view of the above, nothing survives in Civil Application Stamp No. 22482 of 2015 and the same is disposed off.

¶54

(S. B. SHUKRE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)

Shri Padmakar Janardan Kamble and Anr. v. Shri. Balwant Moreshwar Purandare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Padmakar Janardan Kamble and Anr. v. Shri. Balwant Moreshwar Purandare 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

Shri. Nivrutti Dhondiram Godse and Anr. Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Abdul Malik Haji Mohammed Yunus Vs the Malegaon Corporation and Ors.

Nagesh Madavi S/O Ashok Madavi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vidarbha Asso. for Res. Tech. and Dev. in Agri. and Rural Sec. Thr. Its Pre. Dr. Balwant G. Bathkal Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Others

Vasant Ganesh Apte Vs Prakash Naiknavare and Ors.

Shri. Hunoorsidha Khelpa Shejale Vs Shri. Vishal Baburao Takmoge and Ors.

Vasant Ganesh Apte Vs Prakash Naiknavare and Ors.

Shri. Hunoorsidha Khelpa Shejale Vs Shri. Vishal Baburao Takmoge and Ors.

Shri. Hayachand Babaso Desai Vs State of Maharashtra through Itrs Ministry of Revenue and Ors.

Garima Nitendrasingh Thakur Vs Shri Shivaji Jondhale and Ors.

Shri. Bhimrao Govind Chougule and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, the Dept. of Co-Operation and Ors.

Shri. Dhruv P. Gokhale Vs the Sarpanch, Group Grampanchayat, Velneshwar-Waddi and Ors.

Suresh Narayan Rege Vs the Saraswat Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Dhruv P. Gokhale Vs the Sarpanch, Group Grampanchayat, Velneshwar-Waddi and Ors.