Dismissed

Chandrakant Bhiwa Bhandare and 3 Ors. v. the Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Oct 2016PIL/44/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a public interest litigation challenging the arbitrary and discriminatory actions of the Union of India in declaring persons cremated at Raj Ghat as national leaders. The court held that no public interest was involved.

What did the court decide?

None; the writs and directions sought by petitioners were denied and the PIL jurisdiction was not exercised.

Chandrakant Bhiwa Bhandare and 3 Ors… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

PIL. 44-15

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 44 OF 2015 WITH

¶5

RESTORATION APPLICATION No. 700 OF 2015

¶6

Chandrakant Bhiwa Bhandare & Ors. … Petitioners Vs. The Union of India & Anr. … Respondents ***

¶7

None for the Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Parag Vyas, for the Respondents.

¶9

¶10

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : OCTOBER 18, 2016

¶11

PC.

¶12

None appears on behalf of the Petitioners. Heard the

¶13

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. By this petition, which is filed as a PIL, Petitioners are seeking following reliefs:

¶14

“(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226

¶15

1 / 4

¶16

PIL. 44-15

¶17

of the Constitution of India to declare as arbitrary, discriminatory, high handed, invalid and illegal the actions / decisions of the Respondent No. 1 in declaring only persons cremated or buried in the Raj Ghat in New Delhi as national leaders;

¶18

(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the Respondent No. 1 to move in the direction of enacting an Act and / or framing a policy to declare a person as a national leader;

¶19

(c) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the Respondent No. 1 to declare Dr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar as national leader;

¶20

(d) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for records of the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 relating to granting or according status of national leaders to the persons cremated or buried at the Raj Ghat in New Delhi.

¶21

2 / 4

¶22

PIL. 44-15

¶23

(e) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of prohibition in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to restrain the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 from further declaring any person as a national leader who will be cremated or buried hereafter at the Raj Ghat in New Delhi;

¶24

(f) that pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to restrain the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 from further declaring any person as a national leader who will be cremated or buried hereafter at the Raj Ghat in New Delhi;

¶25

(g) Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (f) be granted;

¶26

(h) for costs of this petition;

¶27

(j) such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances may require be granted.”

¶28

We are of the view that no public interest is involved in this PIL, and the reliefs claimed by the Petitioners cannot be granted by this Court while exercising our PIL jurisdiction. PIL is, therefore, dismissed.

¶29

3 / 4

¶30

PIL. 44-15

¶31

In view of dismissal of the PIL, Restoration Application

¶32

No. 700 of 2015 filed therein does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.

¶33

Sd/Sd/[Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶34

Vinayak Halemath

¶35

4 / 4

Chandrakant Bhiwa Bhandare and 3 Ors. v. the Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandrakant Bhiwa Bhandare and 3 Ors. v. the Union of India and Anr.

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

Jitendra Naresh Bhabhe and Anr. Vs the Director Directorate General of Civil Aviation and Ors.

Shri. Bhimrao Anna Kadale Patil Vs Government of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tadgaon-Khemwadi-Dudhani-Kotbyachiwadi (Tkdk, Vikas Parisar Vikas Sangarsh Samiti and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forests Dept and Ors.

Bharatiya Kisan Sangh Vs State of Maharashtra

Shri. Kantibhai Devji Sankhala and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Town Planning and Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Mahadev Pandurang Kadam and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., and Ors.

Shri. Mahadev Pandurang Kadam and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd., and Ors.

Firoz Khan S/O Karam Khan Taji and Others Vs Hazrat Baba Tajuddin Trust Tajabad Thr. Chairman Umred Road Nagpur

Manubai @ Motibai Niklaw Vaity and 26 Ors. Vs Anil R. Agarwal and Anr.

Jitendra Naresh Bhabhe and Anr. Vs the Director Directorate General of Civil Aviation and Ors.

Centre for Oppressed Peoples Elevation Cope Vs High Court on Its Own Motion through Registrar General

Shri. Rajendra Vasantrao Chavan and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Dr. Sahil Singh Dilip Singh Vs Thane Municipal Corporation, Thane, through Commissioner and Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Vasantrao Chavan and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.