Dismissed

Prashant Ashokrao Popsethwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC24 Sept 2018PIL/90/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petition by a social worker challenging illegal appointments and seeking inquiry/quashing was dismissed. The Court held that service grievances fall under service jurisdiction, not PIL, and factual disputes prevent PIL entente even regarding prima facie illegality.

What did the court decide?

The prayer clauses (B) and (C) were rejected; the petition was dismissed and disposed of; the deposited amount of Rs.50,000 was permitted to be withdrawn.

Prashant Ashokrao Popsethwar Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(1)

¶2

90.18pil

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 90 OF 2018

¶5

Prashant s/o Ashokrao Popsethwar,
Age: 41 years, Occ: Social worker,
R/o. Gandhi Chowk, Bhokar,
Tq. Bhokar, Dist. Nanded...PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Chief Secretary, General Administration, Mantralay, Mumbai-32.

¶8

2. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralay, Mumbai-32.

¶9

3. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Department of Social Justice & Special Assistant, Mantralay, Mumbai-32.

¶10

4. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Industry, Energy and Labour Department, Mantralay,Mumbai-32.

¶11

5. The Municipal Commissioner, Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. ..RESPONDENTS

¶12

Mr Shrikant Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner;
Mrs A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent/State;

¶13

90.18pil

¶14

(2)

¶15

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE &
 MANISH PITALE,JJ.

¶16

 DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2018

¶17

ORAL ORDER :

¶18

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the
petitioner.

¶19

2.The petitioner before this Court is

¶20

claiming to be a social worker. The prayers made
in the petition are prayer clauses (B) and (C).
Insofar as prayer clause (B) is concerned, it is

¶21

purely under the domain of the service
jurisprudence and for entitlement of such claim and
for redressal of grievances the competent forum is
available, and the petitioner prays for termination
of service of the employees who are appointed as
per recommendations of Lad Page committee and he
further prays to seek recovery of excess amount
paid to the workers and claims that they are
holding these posts illegally. The prayer clause
(C) is of seeking inquiry on the ground that these
are illegal appointments and authorities committed

¶22

(3)

¶23

90.18pil

¶24

crime.

¶25

3.Insofar as prayer clause (B) is concerned,
we are of the clear opinion that by such prayer,
the petitioner is expanding the scope of public
interest litigation and the issue which can be
dealt with under service jurisprudence by another
forum is tried to be brought under the cause of
public. We cannot permit such expansion of scope

¶26

of public interest litigation only on the
assumptions and presumptions of the petitioner.

¶27

4.Insofar as second prayer is concerned,

¶28

firstly it is the allegation of the petitioner that
certain criminal act is committed by the
respondents. If the petitioner is of the opinion
that a criminal act which covers under the scope of
penal code is committed by a person, the petitioner
is not prevented to avail other remedies open for

¶29

him namely setting criminal law in motion by
approaching appropriate forum including police
authorities. Secondly, learned Counsel appearing

¶30

90.18pil

¶31

(4)

¶32

for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on the
document placed on record at Exhibit-E page-44 and
submitted that there is a conclusion arrived in the
form of opinion by the authorities that the
illegality is committed.

¶33

5.Perusal of the communication shows that

¶34

the authority only opined prima facie and his opinion is preliminary opinion and with caution, the authority states that this could be his opinion subject to guidance from the State Government and in clear and unambiguous terms, the authority states in the words “ शशसनशकडडनमशररदशरनपशपझशलयशवरचअअततम तनषकरशरपत पपहचतश ययईल . वररल पमशणय अहवशल सशदर .” This communication is dated 17^th February, 2018. At the cost of repetition, we state that the authority was awaiting guidance from the State Government and as the communication is dated 17^th February, 2018 and the State Government can certainly forward necessary guidance to the authority. The State Government is yet to arrive at final decision. To hold that the authority arrived at a conclusion

¶35

(5)

¶36

that illegality is committed and criminal action be
initiated against the respondent authorities would
be an exercise in haste and we are not inclined to
undertake such exercise.

¶37

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶38

petitioner also submitted that the communication is
only forwarded but in reality, no such guidance is
sought for from the State Government. Now, this
is purely disputed questions of facts namely
whether such communication is really forwarded or
not. This being the disputed questions of fact, we
are certainly not inclined to entertain even the
disputed questions of fact in a public interest
litigation.

¶39

7.Considering all these above referred

¶40

facts, we are of the clear opinion that the
petition cannot be entertained as a public interest
litigation and accordingly the petition is
dismissed and disposed of.

¶41

8.We further make it clear that if the

¶42

petitioner is having any other civil remedies
available, he is at liberty to avail such remedies,
if so advised.

¶43

9. Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶44

petitioner makes a statement that the petitioner had deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) under the orders of this Court to show his bona fides. As we declined to entertain the petition, we permit the petitioner to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court.

¶45

(MANISH PITALE)(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE

¶46

Tupe

¶47

S.U. Digitally signedby S.U. Tupe Date: 2018.09.26 15:00:20 +0530 Tupe

Prashant Ashokrao Popsethwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Ashokrao Popsethwar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashatai Madhav Kalyan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mansoor Sikander Pathan Patel and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sandip Gautam Wghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Atul Dilip Kashid Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary Revenu Dept and Forest Dept. and Anr.

Jaikumar Mukundrao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Brijmohan Dhirajprasad Mishra Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sanjay Madhavrao Patil and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Anil Gayaprasadji Mishra Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust, through Its Chairman, Nagpur and Others

Chunnilal Popatlal Patel (Died) Thr Lrs Deepak and Anr. Vs Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth Parbhani Thr Its Registrar and Anr.

Umakant Hanmant Damargide Vs Nitin Gulabrao Kapadnis

Kevalabai Narsing Udekar Vs Nitin Gulabrao Kapadnis

Kammri Omkar Ramchandraiah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijay Ramrao Patait and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajendra Ganpat Ghongade Vs Kishor Deshmukh