A PIL was dismissed where the Civil Court had already decreed a suit by the respondents. The High Court termed the filing of this PIL an unwarrantable practice while appropriate challenge to the civil decree was pending.
The PIL was dismissed with costs.
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.
k 1/2 34 pil 23.23 as.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.23 OF 2023
Sudam Rangrao Patil ....Petitioner V/S The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents
Mr. Ramdas A. Shelke for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP a/w Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-State.
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY 2023.
P.C.:
2 The Petitioner claims to have filed this PIL in public interest. The Petitioner is seeking directions against Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to take immediate action and terminate the services of Respondent Nos.6 to 19.
3 According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, these Respondent Nos.6 to 19 are ineligible and untrained that would cause loss to the students. The learned Counsel submits that the State had taken action against them. Respondent Nos.6 to 19 had filed the Writ Petition before this Court. This Court did not entertain the Petition. The
Respondents approached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court directed
1/2
katkam
k 2/2 34 pil 23.23 as.doc
to grant one more opportunity to them even after the opportunity was given the Respondent Nos.6 to 19 could not clear the examination. The learned Counsel submits that these Respondent Nos.6 to 19 filed civil suit before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division. Though the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division does not possess the jurisdiction the suit is decreed. The Petitioner has challenged the said judgment by taking an appropriate recourse and the same is pending. However, as it would require more time to get the matter decided, the present PIL is filed.
4 We cannot encourage such a practice on behalf of the Petitioner. Such practice needs to be deprecated. The Civil Court has already passed the order and has decreed the suit filed by the Respondents herein. The Petitioner has already challenged the said decree by taking appropriate proceedings. In view of that the present PIL ought not to have been filed.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date: 2023.02.11 10:34:10 +0530
2/2
katkam
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a PIL concerning termination of ineligible teachers is maintainable when the civil court has already decreed the suit.
Sudam Rangrao Patil
The State of Maharashtra
Others
S.V. Gangapurwala
Sandeep V. Marne
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
