File dismissed as disguised private interest. Court held petitioner misled the Court by pursuing a personal lease dispute under the guise of PIL, leading to forfeiture of deposit.
Rs.25,000/- deposit directed to be forfeited.
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.
1
7pil22o16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.22 OF 2016
VINOD NAGORAO BHARNE VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri Amit A. Mukhedkar. Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Shri M.S. Deshmukh AGP for Respondent Nos.2, 3, 7 and 8 : Mrs.M.A. Deshpande Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 : Shri A.P. Bhandari Advocate for Respondent No.9 : Shri S.S. Bora Advocate for Respondent No.10 : Shri R.K. Ingole Patil.
CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, C.J. &
DATE :- 20th January, 2021
Per Court (Ravindra V. Ghuge, J) :-
social worker, has sought final reliefs in terms of prayer clauses B, C and D
as under:-
2
7pil22o16
Survey No.12, admeasuring 7000 square feet situated at Mauje Jangamwadi, on Main Road at Nanded, on lease basis, by inviting Public Tender and publishing Public Notice in newspapers.
D) To hold and declare that the lease agreement dated 21.04.2010 executed in between respondent No.8 and respondent No.9 is executed without any authority, is illegal, void ab-initio and the same may please be quashed and set aside.”
3 7pil22o16
Nos.2, 7 and 8 by allotting the land to respondent Nos.5 and 9 on lease, for a paltry lease rent.
(c) The petitioner is of the view that the said land would have fetched a large amount of lease premium of more than Rs.1 lac per month as in 2010 and today, the said amount would have grown multiple times.
(d) Given the opportunity, the petitioner would be interested in taking the said land on lease at rates as mentioned above.
4 7pil22o16
rate as per the ready-reckoner 2009-2010 for Survey No.12, the price of the land, 6% commercial rent and the annual rent chargeable and has then arrived at the rate to be charged per square feet. The learned AGP on behalf of the State has contended that as the chargeable rent has been deduced on the basis of the market rate with addition of 6% commercial rent, no loss has been caused to the State exchequer.
5 7pil22o16
It is, thus, obvious to us that the petitioner has misled this Court in believing that he is before the Court for a public cause and no personal interest was involved. In view of the said contention, this Public Interest Litigation, not only deserves to be dismissed, but the amount of Rs.25,000/-, which was directed to be deposited vide the order of this Court dated 03.02.2016, deserves to be forfeited.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
kps
Vinod Nagorao Bharne
The Union of India
Dipankar Datta
Ravindra V. Ghuge
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
