This Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by the petitioner as an abuse of the judicial process. The judgment held that the pleadings were too vague and lacked material particulars, citing Supreme Court precedent requiring genuine sources of information.
PIL dismissed; petitioners deposited amount to be returned.
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.
83.2017 PIL
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.83 OF 2017
Santosh s/o.Uttamrao Rasve,
Age-25 years, Occu-Agri & Social Work,
R/o.Kharat-Adgaon, Tq.Majalgaon,
District: Beed.
PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
& others
RESPONDENTS
...
Mr.M.B.Sandanshiv, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.S.S.Dande, AGP for the respondent/State
...
CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
S.M.GAVHANE, JJ.
DATE : 18.01.2018
ORDER:
1] We have carefully perused the pleadings in
the Petition. There are no material particulars,
and the Petition suffers from details of the role
played by the Talathis, against whom general and
vague allegations are made. When the Petition is
filed as Public Interest Litigation, the
petitioner, before filing such Public Interest
Litigation, has to do thorough research, and only
after making such research by providing material
83.2017 PIL
2
particulars and details, should undertake exercise
of filing PIL.
2] The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.P.Anand, Indore Vs. H.D.Deve Gowda and ors.1 and in particular, paragraph 18 thereof, held that 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.
3]As already observed, the pleadings in the
PIL are too vague and general in nature. In our
opinion, filing of such PIL is abuse of process of
Court. In that view of the matter, the Public
Interest Litigation stands dismissed.
4]If the amount has been deposited by the
petitioner, the Registry shall return the said
amount to the petitioner.
[S.M.GAVHANE] [S.S.SHINDE]
JUDGE JUDGE
DDC
1[1996] 6 SCC 734
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the PIL filed by the petitioner suffers from vagueness and lack of material particulars sufficient to proceed.
Whether the filing of the PIL amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.P.Anand, Indore Vs. H.D.Deve Gowda and ors.Relied on¶2
[1996] 6 SCC 734 · Who else cites this
Santosh s/o.Uttamrao Rasve
The State of Maharashtra
S.S. SHINDE
S.M.GAVHANE
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