Dismissed

Ashutosh Rameshchandra Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary of Chief Minister of Mah. and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Jan 2017PIL/8/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Division Bench rejected a PIL filed by a petitioner claiming to be a social worker. The petition sought directions for implementing previous orders regarding the demolition of illegal religious structures. The Court declined to entertain the petition due to its vague and general nature.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is aggrieved and the PIL is rejected.

Ashutosh Rameshchandra Tiwari Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

p-15 PIL 8-17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 8 OF 2017

¶4

Ashutosh Rameshchandra Tiwari

¶5

..Petitioner

¶6

v/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Mr. V.P.Malvankar, AGP 'A' Panel for the Respondent-State.

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATED : 18TH JANUARY, 2017

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Not on Board. On production, taken on board.

¶13

As per the Administrative Order dated 19^th December, 2012 this

¶14

Public Interest Litigation has been specially assigned to the Division Bench of which one of us (A.S.Oka, J.) is a member. The petitioner who claims to be a member of Vishwa Hindu Parishad and a social worker has filed this Public Interest Litigation having only one substantive prayer which reads thus:

¶15

“ That this Honourable Court be pleased to pass

1 of 3

pps

p-15 PIL 8-17.doc

appropriate writ, order and direction directing the Respondents to issue necessary directions to all the Municipal Corporation, Nagar Parishad, Collectors etc., to implement the order passed by this Honourable Court dt. 1.10.2016 in PIL No. 104 of 2010 and also the order passed by the Honourable Apex Court in SLP No. 8519 of 2006 after following the process of law and after holding necessary inquiry in respect of each and every religious place on case to case basis i.e. after giving opportunity to the concerned religious place to produce necessary documents or by giving personal hearing on such terms as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper.”

¶20

By judgment and order dated 1^st October, 2016 in Public Interest Litigation No.104 of 2010, this Court directed the State Government to take action of demolition of illegal places/structures of religion in the State. This Court heavily relied on the orders passed by the Apex Court from time to time. In fact, this Court has passed directions for implementation of the orders of the Apex Court.

¶21

We have perused the averments made in the petition. Firstly, we may note here that not a single instance of demolition of a place of religion allegedly in breach of the directions of this Court with

2 of 3

pps

p-15 PIL 8-17.doc

material particulars has been pleaded.

¶26

If any place of religion is demolished or is being demolished in

¶27

breach of directions issued by this Court under the Judgment and Order dated 1^st October, 2016, the concerned affected persons can always take recourse of remedies available in law by contending that the structures are sought to be demolished or are demolished without following due process of law and without following directions issued by this Court.

¶28

At the instance of the petitioner, such a Public Interest Litigation containing vague and general prayer cannot be entertained.

¶29

We, therefore, decline to entertain this Public Interest Litigation and the same is rejected.

¶30

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

¶31

3 of 3

¶32

pps

Ashutosh Rameshchandra Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary of Chief Minister of Mah. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashutosh Rameshchandra Tiwari v. State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary of Chief Minister of Mah. 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

Suresh Bibhishan Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vishwasrao Sukhadeo Deokar Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Rajeshwar Ganesh Panchal Vs the Union of India, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Vishwasrao Sukhadeo Deokar Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

The Advocates Bar Association of Maharashtra State Wakf Tribunal Aurangabad through Its President Vs Union Government of India through Its Chief Secretary New Delhi and Others

Mr. Ajit Kumar Maruti Sonawane and Anr. Vs Principal Secretary - Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept. and Ors.

Puneet Dhanda Vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary

Shri. Ashok Ramchandra Metkari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Co-Operation, Marketing and Textiles Dept and Ors.

Ashish Kothari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bharatiya Chhatra Sansad Vs the State Election Commissioner

Shegufa Adi Haubrich Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Jitendra G. Janavale Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Moiz Washimudin Farooqui Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yohan G. Immanuel and Ors. Vs Charity Commissioner, Mah. Authorities, Bombay Public Trust Act. and Anr.