This bench monitored compliance with final directions in a PIL. It noted substantial compliance, citing the deletion of Rule 263 of Maharashtra Rules allowing courier service and the availability of video conferencing at the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
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.
pil128
1
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.128 OF 2004
Anil Prabhakar Tadkalkar
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Petitioner
...Respondents
Mr.Omkar Paranjape i/b Mr.Avinash Gokhale for the
Petitioner
Mr.Manish Pabale, AGP for the respondent No.1
Mr.S.R.Nargolkar for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
R.D.DHANUKA, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 15, 2018
P.C.:
1This Bench has been monitoring compliance with
the final directions issued under the Judgment and
order dated 21st December 2016.
2Barring one or two directions, there appears to
be a substantial compliance made by the State
Government. One area where compliance was not made
was regarding repeal of Rule 263 of the Maharashtra
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (for short `Maharashtra
Rules'). By a notification dated 6th September 2017
published in Government Gazette dated 7th September
2017, the Maharashtra Rules have been amended and
the Rule 263 has been deleted. Therefore, now there
is no requirement of payment of process fee for
issuing notices by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunals. It will be appropriate if the Registry
2 pil128
invites attention of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunals in the State to the aforesaid fact.
3Other area of non compliance was clause (vii)
of paragraph 30 of the final Judgment which reads
thus:
“(vii) It will be appropriate if the State
Government amends the Maharashtra Rules to
facilitate service of notice through Courier
service as provided in sub-Rule (3) of Rule 9
of Order V of the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908”
4Our attention is invited to the decision of
Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd.
Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui vs. Deputy Director of
Health Services1 as well as the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Mantoo Sarjar Vs. Oriental
Insurance Company Limited and others2.
5 The view taken by the Full Bench is that the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (for
short `the said Code') are applicable in all matters
to the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal. In the case of Mantoo Sarkar (supra), the
Apex Court was dealing with the nature of powers
exercised by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
The Apex Court held that for all intents and
purposes, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has
trappings of a Civil Court. Thus, it follows that
1 2008(6) Mh.L.J. 941
2 (2009) 2 SCC 244
3 pil128
the facility of service of notice through courier in
accordance with sub Rule 3 of Rule 9 of Order V of
the said Code is available to the Motor Accident
Claim Tribunals as the provisions of Order V of the
said Code will squarely apply.
6As far as the video conferencing facility is
concerned, in respect of which direction (viii) has
been issued under the final Judgment, we are
informed that the facility of video conferencing was
not provided to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
in Mumbai. Today, the learned counsel representing
the High Court Administration states that necessary
arrangements have already been made to provide
video conferencing facility in the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal in Mumbai. He states that necessary
equipmentwillbeprovidedbytheE-
Committee/Computer Committee of this Court.
7We find that subject to what is observed above,
substantial compliance has been made by the
respondents with the directions issued in this PIL.
Therefore, this petition need not be listed any
further. However, if the parties need any
clarification, they are free to move this Court by
filing a civil application.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State Government has substantially complied with the directions of the final Judgment public interest litigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mohd. Riyazur Rehman Siddiqui vs. Deputy Director of Health ServicesExplained¶17
2008(6) Mh.L.J. 941 · Who else cites this
Mantoo Sarjar Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and othersExplained¶17
(2009) 2 SCC 244 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Anil Prabhakar Tadkalkar
State of Maharashtra
A.S.Oka
R.D.Dhanuka
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