Disposed

Manik Bhimrao Jadhav v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC12 Apr 2016PIL/54/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL filed relying on media reports, the Court held that the petitioner lacked an authenticated source of information. Viewing that the Central Government had taken immediate steps, the Court refused to encroach on the executive sphere and disposed of the petition as inappropriate at that stage.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation was disposed of as it was not an appropriate stage to consider the issues. Petitioner's deposit was refunded.

Manik Bhimrao Jadhav Vs the Union of India and… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 16-PIL54-16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.54 OF 2016

¶4

Shri. Manik Bhimrao Jadhav,
Age : 61 years, Occ. Agri.,
r/o. Kamgar Bhavan, Hate Nagar,
Dist. Latur..Petitioner

¶5

versus

¶6

1] The Union of India,
 Ministry of Finance,
 Department of Economic Affairs,
 Through its Secretary,
 Room No.39-B, North Block,
 Central Secretariat,
 New Delhi 110 001

¶7

2] The Secretary,

¶8

 Ministry of Home Affairs,
 Department of Home,
 North Block, Central Secretariat,
 New Delhi 110 001

¶9

3] The Director,
 Central Bureau of Investigation,
 Plot No.5-B, CGO Complex,
 Lodhi Road,
 New Delhi 110 003

¶10

4] The Director,
 Enforcement Directorate,
 6th Floor, Lok Nayak Bhawan,
 Khan Market, New Delhi 110 003

¶11

5] The Chief Editor,
 The Indian Express (P) Ltd.
 Express Towers, Second Floor,

¶12

2 16-PIL54-16.odt

¶13

 Nariman Point,
 Mumbai 400 032

¶14

6] The Director General,
 Directorate of Revenue
 Intelligence, 7th Floor,
 D Block, I.P. Bhawan,
 I.P. Estate, New Delhi..Respondents

¶15

Ms.Pradnya S. Talekar, advocate i/b. Mr.S.B.
Talekar, advocate for petitioners

¶16

Mr.S.B.Deshpande, A.S.G. AGP for respondent no.1 –
Union of India

¶17

CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 12, 2016

¶18

PER COURT :

¶19

Heard the learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General
for respondent no.1 – Union of India.

¶20

2]We have considered the submissions of the
learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and
carefully perused the pleadings in the petition
and in particular, the knowledge of the petitioner

¶21

3 16-PIL54-16.odt

¶22

about the facts which have been pleaded in the
petition. The petitioner has stated in the
petition that, he has gathered the information
from the Internet and newspaper.

¶23

3]The learned advocate for the petitioner,
relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ram Jethmalani and ors. Vs.
Union of India, 2011(8) SCC 1, submits that, even
the said petition was filed on the basis of the
media reports.

¶24

4]Keeping in view the exposition of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶25

S.P. Anand, Indore Vs. H.D. Deve Gowda and ors.,

¶26

(1996)6 SCC 734 and in particular, paragraph 18
thereof, the petitioner should have a genuine
source of information before filing the Public
Interest Litigation and he must be well conversant
with the facts pleaded in the petition.

¶27

4 16-PIL54-16.odt

¶28

5]Upon perusal of the facts and the incidents
narrated in the petition, in our opinion, those
are in respect of the developments, which have
taken place recently and immediately, the present
Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the
petitioner. The petitioner does not seem to have
authenticated source of knowledge of the said
developments.

¶29

6]As rightly contended by the learned Assistant
Solicitor General appearing for respondent no.1 –
Union of India, the Central Government has taken
immediate steps to address the issues raised in
the petition. Therefore, entertaining this
petition as a Public Interest Litigation, at this
stage, may amount to encroaching upon the sphere
reserved by the Constitution for the Executive.

¶30

7]The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware Vs. State of Maharashtra
and ors., (2005)1 SCC 590 has held that while

¶31

5 16-PIL54-16.odt

¶32

entertaining a Public Interest Litigation, the

¶33

Court has to be extremely careful and see that it
does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the

¶34

Constitution for the executive and the

¶35

legislature. Considering the steps taken by the
Central Government, in our view, it would be too
early to entertain such type of petition, which

¶36

would have the effect of interfering into the
action initiated by the Central Government at the
threshold.

¶37

8]For the reasons afore-stated, we do not think

¶38

that this is an appropriate stage to consider the
issues raised in this petition.

¶39

9]In the light of the above discussion, the
present Public Interest Litigation stands disposed
of.

¶40

10]The amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five
Thousand) deposited by the petitioner be refunded
to the petitioner.

¶41

6 16-PIL54-16.odt

¶42

11]The parties to act on authenticated copies of

¶43

this order.

¶44

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶45

kbp

Manik Bhimrao Jadhav v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Bhimrao Jadhav v. the Union of India and Others

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

Ashok Saremal Sanklesha Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 5 Ors.

Raja Basu and Anr. Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Shri. Mohan Marotrao Karemore Vs Union of India Thr. Secretary and Others

I. C. Welfare Women'S Association Vs the State of Maharashtra and 20 Ors.

Tapi Bachav Shetkari Sangharsha Samiti Koparli through Its Secretary Subhash Magan Nerkar and Other Vs the Honble Minister Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Muslim Shah Chapparband Samajik Vikas Mandal through Its President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ishwar Madhukar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vasudha Ganeshsingh Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Marathwada Sarvoday Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Jalna Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhav Laluji Pallewad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vitthal Punaji Rathod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kiran Milind Magar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Harsha Jitendra Patil Vs Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji High School Sanstha and Others

Vyankat Ramdas Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others