Dismissed

Vilas S/O Dattatraya Gurnule v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC24 Feb 2021PIL/29/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the petitioner claimed inter-departmental documents were provided by the Gram Panchayat. The bench, noticing lack of RTI endorsement and unsubstantiated source, doubted the petitioner's bona fides and refused to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of and no further proceedings initiated due to doubts regarding petitioner's bona fides and source of documents.

Vilas S/O Dattatraya Gurnule Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

904PIL 29.2020.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 29/2020

¶5

Vilas s/o Dattatraya Gurnule

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

Shri R.S. Kurekar, Advocate for the Petitioner

¶11

Mrs. K.S. Joshi, Incharge GP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 - State Shri N.B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for Respondent No. 4 Shri J.B. Kasat, Advocate for Respondent No. 5

¶12

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 24 FEBRUARY 2021

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

As it is settled that before the process in public interest is initiated, the Court should ensure that the Court process is not abused and the cause is genuine. For that purpose, the Court scrutinizes the bonafides of the Petitioner who seeks to initiate the Court process in public interest. One of the safeguard in that regard is an undertaking that the Petitioner will disclose the source of his information. Keeping that in mind, on 13 January 2021, we had passed the following order:

¶16

“The petitioner has annexed various documents to this petition, which are not addressed to him, but are inter-departmental correspondence.

¶17

SMGate

¶18

2 904PIL 29.2020.odt

¶19

Shri Kurekar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, seeks time to file an additional affidavit disclosing how the Petitioner came in possession of these documents.

¶20

Stand over to 3 February 2021.”

¶21

An additional affidavit is filed, wherein the explanation as sought to be given that the Petitioner being resident of the village, he was given copies of these documents by the Gram Panchayat.

¶22

We are not being shown any position of law where official documents are given merely for asking to anyone. None of the documents have endorsement that they have been issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The documents were secured perhaps for reason other than public interest. The Petitioner is not being candid with the Court.

¶23

Having serious doubt about the bonafides of the Petitioner, we refused to initiate any further proceedings at the instance of the Petitioner.

¶24

The Petition is disposed of.

¶25

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.] [NITIN JAMDAR, J.]

¶26

SMGate

Vilas S/O Dattatraya Gurnule v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vilas S/O Dattatraya Gurnule v. State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Bhimrao Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rahul S/O Ramchand Kishnani and Another Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Dept.) and Others

Hadapsar Industrial Estate Environmental Group Vs the Pune Cantonment Board and Ors.

Sanjay Bhaskarrao Kale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Asif Shaukat Qureshi vs Union of India, through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and Another

Anurath Tatyarao Chandmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Subhash Kathalu Bapmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vaijinath Bhanudas Solunke Vs the Municipal Council and Others

M/S. Chaudhari Petroleum Thr. Proprietor, Smt. Sarika W/O Kailash Chaudhari Vs Union of India, Thr. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi and Others

Dilip S/O Holiram Meshram Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, General Administrative Department, Mumbai and Others

Yuniskhan Abdullha Khan Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Buldhana and Others

Sau. Ujwala Khemraj Ramteke Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and Others

Moreshwar S/O Nanaji Patre Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Department of Co-Operation, Textile and Marketing, Mumbai and Others

Suman W/O Madhav Bhutekar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Cooperation, Marketing and Textiles, Mumbai and Others