Dismissed

Shubham Rushi Bawankar v. State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC28 Mar 2022PIL/5/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by a petitioner claiming to be a social worker regarding the auction of sand ghats. The court found the claim unbona fide due to the petitioner's failure to perform social work, dismissed the petition with costs, and kept the auction issue open.

What did the court decide?

PIL dismissed with costs of ₹10,000 payable to the Legal Services Authority, Bhandara, recoverable as arrears of land revenue.

Shubham Rushi Bawankar Vs State of Maha., Thr… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

PIL.5.22

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 5 OF 2022

¶5

Shubham Rushi Bawankar .. Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and Others

¶8

Mr. A.R.Ingole, Advocate for the Petitioner

¶9

Ms. K.S. Joshi, Incharge Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7

¶10

CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR & ANIL L. PANSARE,JJ DATED : 28 March 2022 .

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

This Public Interest Litigation is filed in respect of auctions of 18 sand ghats at Gondia District and 54 sand ghats at Bhandara District.

¶13

The Petitioner is not a bidder for both the auction processes. The grievance made in this Petition is regarding the process adopted being unfair to the bidders. As regards the unfairness of the procedure to the bidders is concerned, the bidders have filed their petitions wherein interim orders have been passed with clarification that where environmental clearance is obtained, the proceedings can continue.

¶14

PIL.5.22

¶15

¶16

Since the Petitioner has styled himself as a social worker we had asked the details of social work that Petitioner does, as we increasingly find that under the name of social work, locus is sought to be assumed. The Court has to be on guard to ensure that the extraordinary remedy of public interest litigation is not abused by unscrupulous elements. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the earlier occasion had stated that the Petitioner will contribute to social work to show his bona fides. The Petitioner had stated that he will attend the office of Legal Services Authority at Bhandara and was willing to do social work as suggested by the Legal Services Authority. This order was passed on 7 March 2022. The Legal Services Authority, Bhandara has stated that the Court Bailiff went to the house of the Petitioner on behalf of Legal Services Authority and requested him to be present for doing social work. For three weeks, the Petitioner did not report to Legal Services Authority.

¶17

We are convinced that the Petitioner’s claim of being a social worker is not bona fide. This Petitioner has abused the process of law. The PIL is dismissed with costs of 10,000/- (rupees ten₹ thousand).

¶18

The Petitioner shall pay the costs to the Legal Services Authority, Bhandara where the Petitioner had undertaken to do the social work, within a period of two weeks.

¶19

PIL.5.22

¶20

¶21

If the costs are not paid and receipt is not lodged in the Registry within two weeks, we place the responsibility of recovering the same on the concerned Tahsildar where the Petitioner resides as arrears of land revenue.

¶22

As stated above, the issue raised in this PIL, is already being considered, and is kept open.

¶23

sahare

¶24

Digitally Signed ByNARENDRA BHAGWANTRAO SAHARE Location: Signing Date:04.04.2022 11:43

Shubham Rushi Bawankar v. State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Rushi Bawankar v. State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept., Mumbai 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

M/S Sovereign Tech Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (Midc) and Ors.

Anil S/O Subhash Darekar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr, Its Principal Secretary, Development Deptt., Mumbai and Others

Tilak Gopinath Bhos and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijaymala Krishna Asankar and Another Vs State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secy., Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Kanhaiyalal Zumbarlal Surana Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhaurao Dagadu Paralkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Omprakash Digambarappa Patre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pune District Co-Op. Hou. Soc. and Apartments Federation Ltd. Thr. Chairman Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Revenue and Forest Dpet.

Nivedita Mahila Co-Operative Society Ltd., Navargaon, Sindewahi, Chandrapur Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Chandrapur and Another

Gitesh Infrastructure, Thr. Its Proprietor, Suresh S/O Mahadeorao Parchake Vs the Authorized Officer, Bank of India, Warora, Chandrapur and Another

Anil S/O Satyanarayan Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Education Dept. and Others

Ashok Atmaram Jawade Vs Assistant Charity Commissioner, Wardha and Others

Subhash P. Joshi and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Department, Mumbai and Others

Hindustan Vidya Mandal, Thr. President Vijay Ghanshyam Dobankar Vs the Education Officer(Sec.), Zp, Nagpur