The High Court restored a PIL dismissed for non-prosecution but ultimately dismissed the petition as academic and misconceived. The Court held that there is no cause of action for the State to amend legislation and such direction is impermissible under Article 226.
Restoration of the PIL to its original number allowed; merits of the PIL dismissed.
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.
12-IA.4658.2022
Jvs.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4658 OF 2022 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 40 OF 2022 WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 40 OF 2022
| Bharat P. Satra In the matter of |
} Applicant |
|---|---|
| Bharat P. Satra | } Petitioner |
| Versus | |
| State of Maharashtra & Anr. | } Respondents |
Mr. Bharat Satra, applicant/petitioner in-person. Mr. Abhay L. Patki, Additional Government Pleader for State.
CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE: 20th DECEMBER, 2023
P.C.:
1. The petitioner, by moving this interim application, seeks restoration of the PIL petition.
2. The PIL petition was dismissed for non-prosecution by means of an order dated 18th July 2022. We find that the cause shown in the interim application is sufficient. Accordingly, the interim application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), which reads as under: -.
“a) Be please, set aside order dated 18.07.2022 and restore this PIL for the justice.”
3. The writ petition is, thus, restored to file to its original number.
1
12-IA.4658.2022
Public Interest Litigation No. 40 of 2022 :
4. This PIL petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -
“a) to intervene in the section 16(g), 16(2), 53, 55(3) and 56(2), 60 of the Maharashtra Rent control Act, 1999, to protect the rights of the tenants at large and provide justice to them by directing to the Respondent for amendment, omission, addition etc.;
b) to interpret in the section 16(g), 16(2), 53, 55(3) and 56(2) of the Maharashtra Rent control Act, 1999, for protect the rights of the tenants and provide justice to the tenants;
c) court may appoint commissions to collect information on facts and present it before the bench to avoid injustice;
d) To pass any directives/orders as deemed fit and proper, in the Public Interest;
e) Petitioner may allow any interim application or correct and amend the petition any time during the hearing of this PIL;
f) For the act of kindness, the petitioner shall ever pray for.”
5. From a bare perusal of the prayers made by the petitioner, it is clear that the petition has been filed only for academic purpose as the petitioner calls upon us to interpret certain provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 and to further direct the respondents (State) to amend/omit/add in the said provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
6. In absence of any cause of action, if the petitioner calls upon the Court to interpret some piece of legislation, admittedly, the petition would not be maintainable. Further, the petitioner has prayed that the State be directed to make amendments/omissions/additions etc. in the Maharashtra
2
12-IA.4658.2022
Rent Control Act, 1999. This, in fact, is impermissible for the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The PIL petition is entirely misconceived. It is hereby dismissed.
JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE
Digitally signed by JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Date: 2023.12.20 18:33:23 +0530
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking interpretation and amendment of statutory provisions by the State is maintainable under Article 226.
Whether the High Court can direct the State to amend, omit or add to the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bharat P. Satra
State of Maharashtra
Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Arif S. Doctor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
