The High Court of Bombay, Ahmednabad Bench dismissed a PIL at the threshold as worthless and wholly misconceived. The court found the prayers too vague, sought blanket directions inappropriate for PIL, and included specific service grievances beyond the PIL scope.
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.
126.18pil
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.126 OF 2018
1.Bhaskar s/o Vishnu Mapari,
Age: 50 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o. Loni (Kh), Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2.Gorakhdada s/o Yashwantrao Gaware,
Age: 45 years, Occ: Press
Reporter (Loksangram Parishad),
R/o. Babhleshwar, Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1.The State of Maharashtra
Through its Tribal Development
Department, Tribal Research
and Training Department,
Pune (M.S.).
2.The Deputy Collector,
Sanjay Gandhi Yojana,
10th Floor, Administrative
Building, Chetna College,
Govt. Colony, Bandra East,
Mumbai 400 051.
3.The Divisional/Deputy Commissioner,
Caste Scrutiny Committee,
Vartak Nagar, Prabhog Samiti
Office, 3rd Floor, Vedant Sankul,
In front of Cores Company,
Vartak Nagar, Thane
West 400 406.
4.The Secretary,
Public and Works Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
126.18pil
(2)
5. The Chief Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State, Police Housing and Welfare Corporation Ltd., Varli, Mumbai.
6. Arun s/o Vithal Nagpure, Age: 55 years, Occ: Service, Maharashtra State Police Grahanirman and Kalyan Mahamandal Ltd., C/o. Plot No.89A, near Police ground, Sir Pochkhanwsala Road, Varli, Mumbai 400 030. ..RESPONDENTS
Mr B.V. Dhage, Advocate for petitioners;
Mr A.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent/State;
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
MANISH PITALE,JJ.
DATE : 19th OCTOBER, 2018
ORAL ORDER :
Heard learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioners.
2.The petitioners are before this Court. Out
of these two petitioners, as per status referred of
the petitioners in the title clause of the
petitioners, petitioner No.1 is an agriculturist,
resident of Loni (Kh), Taluka Rahata, District
126.18pil
(3)
Ahmednagar and petitioner No.2 is press reporter
also resident of Ahmednagar Distrit. The
petitioners have not provided their better
particulars in the petition though there is
specific clause. It is also not stated in the
petition, what prompted these petitioners to
approach this Court by way of this public interest
litigation and then prayer of the petitioners.
Though petition is styled as public interest
litigation, it is very interesting to note prayer
clauses-B, C and D.
3.Prayer clause (B) reads thus :
“(B)Their Lordship be pleased to
issue the writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order, direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the
respondent No.1 to take the appropriate
action against the Government employees
who have secured the employment on the
basis of false certificate of another
caste under, reserved category belonging
particular caste like Halba or any other
caste but he does belongs to that caste
126.18pil (1)
and the candidates those who are in
Government and semi Government employment
in reserved category but who have not
validated their caste certificate since
the appointment till today in spite of
Government directed to the employee to
validate their caste.”
4.Prayer clause-B is a direction sought for
which is an absolute, which is a direction in the
nature of blanket direction and we have no
hesitation to say that this prayer is as vague as
it could be.
5.Prayer clause-C reads thus :
“C.Their Lordship may pleased to issue
the writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order, direction in the
nature of mandatory, directing the
respondent No. 1,3 and 4 to cancel the
castecertificateissuedtothe
petitioners bearing caste certificate
no.471 dated 30.9.1978 validated on
29.2.2012 vide validation No.279444.”
(2)
6.Now, this prayer is also not only under an
erroneous impression but the prayer itself is again
misquoted prayer only on the assumption and
presumption of the petitioners.
7.Again prayer clause (D) is a prayer
seeking direction to respondent No. 4 to remove
respondent No.6 from the post of Engineer and stop
all the benefits which are available in the post of
No.6 as per law. Respondent No.6 is said to be a
person in service in which service he is engaged.
There are no details except the word service and
resident of Mulund, no other details of respondent
No.6 are referred to and moreover, the petitioners
by way of this petition, seeking a challenge to
service of respondent No.6. This certainly cannot
be a scope in public interest litigation.
8.If the petitioners are aggrieved by some
reasons, they may avail other remedies available
for them in service jurisprudence before the
competent forum if so advised. The petition being
126.18pil (3)
thoroughly meritless and wholly misconceived, we
are not inclined to entertain the same. The
petition, as such, is dismissed at the threshold.
(MANISH PITALE)(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE
Tupe
Digitally signed S.U. by S.U. Tupe Date: 2018.10.23 16:16:41 +0530 Tupe
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a public interest litigation petition framed in vague terms seeking blanket directions and specific service disputes should be entertained.
Whether the petition discloses any substantial justification for the issuance of a writ.
Bhaskar s/o Vishnu Mapari & Ors.
The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Tribal Research and Training Department, Pune
Prasanna B. Varale
Manish Pitale
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