Quashed

Rajendra Laxman Joshi and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC18 Nov 2019PIL/124/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench dismissed Public Interest Litigation No.124 of 2019 as devoid of substantive grounds because it raised an identical issue to PIL No.95 of 2019. To avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Court ordered PIL No.95 of 2019 to proceed while striking out PIL No.124 of 2019. The decision was based on a reading of the PIL Rules of 2010 and the petitioner’s undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation No.124 of 2019 was disposed of; Public Interest Litigation No.95 of 2019 was permitted to proceed.

Rajendra Laxman Joshi and Another Vs the State of… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

PIL-95-2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.95 OF 2019

¶5

Yogesh s/o Raosaheb Bharsakhale and anr.

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr S.S. Khinvasara, Advocate for petitioners Mr A.B. Girase, G.P. for respondents no.1 and 4 Mr A.P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent no.2

¶11

AND

¶12

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.124 OF 2019

¶13

Rajendra s/o Laxman Joshi and ors.

¶14

.. Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶17

.. Respondents

¶18

Mr P.G. Deshmukh, Advocate h/f Mr A.D. Kawre, Advocate for petitioners

¶19

Mr A.B. Girase, G.P. for respondent no.1

¶20

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶21

DATE : 18.11.2019

¶22

ORAL ORDER :

¶23

We have come across two Public Interest Litigations, i.e. Public Interest Litigation No.95 of 2019 and Public Interest Litigation No.124 of 2019. Public Interest Litigation No.95 of 2019 is filed in this Court on 7.8.2019. While issuing notice, the Division Bench of this Court, in order dated 14.8.2019, to which one of us was a party (Prasanna B. Varale, J.) referred to the issue raised in the litigation, namely cutting of large number of trees in a garden located in the heart of City, for establishing Memorial and thereby causing serious damage to ecological environment. The Public Interest Litigation No.95 of 2019

¶24

¶25

PIL-95-2019

¶26

proceeded with certain requests for filing affidavit-in-reply and adjournments. On perusal of Public Interest Litigation No.124 of 2019, it reveals that this petition is filed on 19.9.2019. In the said petition, prayer clause (A) aims at the very grievance namely cutting of trees in the garden located in the heart of City. Public Interest Litigation No.124 of 2019 is circulated before this Court today for orders.

¶27

On finding that Public Interest Litigation No.95 of 2019, wherein notices are already issued and Public Interest Litigation No.124 of 2019 are raising one and the same grievance, we thought it fit to consider the rules framed by this Court under the title, ‘Bombay High Court Public Interest Interest Litigation Rules of 2010’. On perusal of the rules and more particularly, the proforma petition and again more particularly, the declaration and undertaking clause, it revealed that the pre-requisites are an expectation that a thorough research has been conducted in the matter raised through the petition and the issue raised was not dealt with or decided and that a similar or identical petition was not filed earlier by him/it (in case, such an issue was dealt with or a similar or identical petition was failed earlier, state its status or the result).

¶28

Thus, a duty is cast upon the petitioner to ascertain with best of his knowledge and research that the issue is not dealt with earlier. Now, it can safely be said that the purpose of framing of the rules and expectation in the declaration and undertaking clause was to avoid multiplicity of litigation touching the very subject or issue or the cause.

¶29

¶30

PIL-95-2019

¶31

Considering the above referred position, particularly emerged from facts of the matter and perusal of the rules, we are of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by permitting two petitions to be proceeded in this Court. They are filed on an identical issue, but it would be only a multiplicity of litigation. Accordingly, we thought it fit to permit only one petition to proceed. Public Interest Litigation No.95 of 2019 was filed in prior point of time and we must state that when this issue was confronted with the learned Counsel Mr Deshmukh, Mr Deshmukh was fair enough to submit before this Court that it would be in the interest of institute that the multiplicity of litigation be avoided. Mr Deshmukh then submitted that the petitioner had conducted some research in the matter and he would be providing that research material to the learned Counsel appearing in P.I.L. No.95 of 2019 so that the learned Counsel may take appropriate steps in the matter. We appreciate the gesture of Mr Deshmukh.

¶32

Resultantly, we dispose of Public Interest Litigation No.124 of 2019 and Public Interest Litigation No.95 of 2019 be proceeded further.

¶33

Post the Public Interest Litigation No.95 of 2019 on 2.12.2019.

¶34

( ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶35

( PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)

¶36

vvr

Rajendra Laxman Joshi and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Laxman Joshi and Another 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

Vickram Crishna and Ors. Vs Unique Indentification Authority of India and Anr.

Khatri Mohammad Nafees Abdul Jabbar Vs Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Macchindranath Narahari Karalkar S/O Narhari Narayan Karalkar Vs the Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai and Ors.

Rajkumar Awasthi Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Hari Hotumal Tanwani Vs the Commissioner-Ulhasnagar Municipal Corp.and Ors.

Mr. Irba Mashnaji Konapure vs State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Mr. Raja Narasimhan and Anr. Vs Mah. Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Deepak Nathani Vs Maharashtra Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Indira Shankar Karode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Udhav Vitthalrao Shinde Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rajendra Sambhaji Somwanshi and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Laxmibai Damodhar Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Baswant Sambhaji Ubale and Another Vs the Union of India and Others

Manohar Chimaji Chalak Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others