CJ. Dr. Manjula Chellur and J. M.S. Sonak held that the PIL was merely the petitioner's personal grievance regarding membership denial. The Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to challenge the refusal in his individual capacity under proper procedure.
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.
PIL 123-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 123 OF 2014
Mehboob Khan
.. Petitioner
V/s
The Collector of Bombay City & Ors.
.. Respondents
Mr. Vasant Kadam i/b Mr. Yuvraj Narvankar for the petitioner. Mr. Dushyant Kumar, AGP for the State.
Mr. Sharique Nachankar i/b Judicare Law Associates for respondent no.2.
Ms. Namita Shirke i/b Mr. Charanjeet Chanderpal for respondent no.3.
CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, CJ. & M.S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 24th NOVEMBER 2016
P.C.:
The present PIL petition is filed seeking the following
reliefs:-
1 of 3
ABS
PIL 123-2014
pointing out the so-called / alleged misdeeds which amounts to acts of dictatorship on the part of the management of the respondent Gymkhana.
2 of 3
ABS
PIL 123-2014
prior to 4th April 2013 and even at the time of correspondence between the parties for submission of necessary material particulars with his application. After cancelling or denying the membership in the meeting dated 4th April 2013, on 30th April 2013 the present PIL is lodged. Therefore, on refusal of membership by the respondent Gymkhana, the petitioner is before this Court with his individual cause. If the petitioner is aggrieved by denial of admitting him as a member in his individual capacity, he can challenge the same, but not by filing PIL of this nature. If he were to know the misdeeds, acts or mala fides in the functioning of the Gymkhana, we fail to understand why he was pursuing membership till his application was rejected for admitting him as a membership in April 2013.
(M.S. SONAK, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE
3 of 3
ABS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the present PIL filed against the Gymkhana's management constitutes a public interest litigation or merely an individual grievance of the petitioner.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a PIL seeking review of the Gymkhana's decision to cancel the petitioner's membership instead of entertaining an individual challenge.
Whether the petitioner should be allowed to challenge the refusal to admit him as a member of the Gymkhana in his individual capacity.
Mehboob Khan
The Collector of Bombay City & Others
DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
M.S. SONAK
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
