Dismissed

Mehul Shantilal Katariya v. the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Oct 2016CRPIL/35/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the criminal application seeking recall of an earlier order mandating a security deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs for a PIL, citing delay and lack of bona fides. It affirmed that the underlying PIL stood dismissed due to non-compliance of the deposit condition imposed in 2014.

What did the court decide?

The criminal application is dismissed and the earlier dismissal of the PIL due to non-compliance of the security deposit order is affirmed.

Mehul Shantilal Katariya Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

9appi45-16.odt

¶2

spb/

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 45 OF 2016 IN

¶5

CRI. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 35 OF 2015 WITH CRI. PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 35 OF 2015

¶6

Mr. Mehul Shantilal Katariya … Applicant/Petitioner.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Others.

¶9

… Respondents.

¶10

¶11

Mr. M. V. Thorat, Advocate for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel a/w. Surekha Sonawane, Advocate for the Respondents - BMC.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : V. M. KANADE AND MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI,JJ.

¶14

DATE : 04^th OCTOBER, 2016 P.C. :

¶15

1 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant/Petitioner and the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

¶16

2 The Applicant/Petitioner, who claims to be the whistle blower, approached this court, challenging the work order which was issued by the Corporation for purchase of

1/3

Borey

spb/

9appi45-16.odt

ambulances. The work order was issued on 21^st May, 2009 after following the tender process. The Applicant/Petitioner suddenly got up from his slumber and came before this court as a whistle blower in 2014 i.e. after lapse of almost five years from the date of work order. In the meantime, the work order has been executed and purchase have been made, as the ambulances have been purchased for the benefit of the patients and accident victims. In the PIL, after hearing the petitioner, the court felt that, prima facie, it did not appear that the petition was filed with the bonafide intention of espousing any cause in the interest of the public at large. This court, therefore, in order to test bonafides of the petitioner had put a condition that he should deposit an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs in this court. This order was passed on 15^th July, 2014. This order was not complied with by the petitioner and almost after a period of two years, now this application has been filed by the applicant/petitioner for recalling the said order of deposit of Five lakhs rupees in this court. Reliance was placed on some judgments and observations made by the Apex Court therein.

¶22

3 No explanation has been offered regarding the delay which has been caused in filing the present application after two years, for recalling the earlier order. In our view this application for recalling of the order cannot be entertained, firstly, on the ground of delay and secondly, on the ground that the order passed by this court cannot be reviewed again on

2/3

Borey

spb/ 9appi45-16.odt

the ground that some judgment of the Apex Court was not cited.

¶27

4 Apart from the above conduct of the Applicant/ Petitioner, we are, prima facie, satisfied that the Petitioner has not approached this court with bonafide intention of espousing the public cause but merely to harass the Corporation and successful bidder in whose favour the work order was issued. It is obvious that the Applicant/Petitioner has been set up by the persons who did not succeed in the tender process. Normally, this is a fit case where heavy costs should be imposed on such a frivolous public interest petition which has wasted the time of this court. In our view persons like this should be black listed and should not be permitted to file public interest petitions; however, we refrain to pass order of blacklisting the petitioner in this PIL.

¶28

5 The Criminal Application is dismissed.

¶29

6 Since there is non-compliance of the condition imposed by this court earlier vide order dated 15^th July, 2014, the Public Interest Litigation already stood dismissed vide order dated 22^nd June, 2016 passed by this court.

¶30

3/3

¶31

Borey

Mehul Shantilal Katariya v. the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehul Shantilal Katariya v. the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai 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

Ramchandra Jyoti Patil Vs the Managing Director- Kolhapur Zillha Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Ltd.

rohini damji sidpra Vs tata share registry Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Jugal Bhiku Patel and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Smt. Sindhu Goroba Gaisamudre Vs Shri. Goroba Buwaji Gaisamudre

Smt. Sindhu Goroba Gaisamudre Vs Shri. Goroba Buwaji Gaisamudre

Kirti Kumar Suvarna Vs Shimpoli Niranjan Co. Op. Hsg. Soc., Ltd., and Ors.