In 2024, the Bombay High Court rejected various prayers including a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court and directions for compliance with a 2005 order, citing the long lapse of time and irrelevance.
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.
(33)-IA-3190-24.doc .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by BALAJIGOVINDRAO BALAJIGOVINDRAOPANCHAL PANCHAL Date: 2024.12.16 18:20:08 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3190 OF 2024 IN
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2147 OF 2024 IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 682 OF 2005 WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2147 OF 2024
Abhinav Bharat ...Applicant/Petitioner Versus Union of India & Anr. ...Respondents
Dr. Pankaj Phadnis – Applicant/Petitioner present in person. Mr. Abhay L. Patki, Addl. Govt. Pleader a/w Atul Vanarse, AGP for the Respondent – State.
Mr. D. P. Singh, for the Respondent No.1 – UOI.
Ms. Oorja Dhond i/by Komal R. Punjabi, for the Respondent No.3 – BMC in IA/3190/2024.
CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ & AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATE : 14th DECEMBER, 2024
P. C.
Abhinav Bharat, which is a Trust and had earlier instituted a Public Interest Litigation Petition, namely Writ Petition (PIL)
No.682 of 2005 before this Court, which was disposed of by means of an order dated 20th April, 2005 in terms of the statement made by the Additional Solicitor General of India.
BGP. 1 of 9
(33)-IA-3190-24.doc .
The order dated 20th April, 2005 records the statement of the Additional Solicitor General of India to the effect that the representation said to have been made by the Petitioner will be disposed of by a reason order within six weeks, which is as under :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.682 OF 2005
Abhinav Bharat ...Petitioner Versus The Union of India ...Respondent
Mr. Pankaj Phadnis, representative of petitioner, is present. Mr. B. A. Desai, Additional Solicitor General, for the respondent.
CORAM: DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J. & DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE: APRIL 20, 2005.
P.C.
It is unfortunate that despite the orders of the Court, the representation of the petitioner has not been disposed of by a reasoned order. The learned Additional Solicitor General submits that the representation would now be disposed of by a reasoned order within six weeks from today. We order accordingly. No further directions are necessary. This petition is accordingly disposed of. In case the representation is not decided within six weeks from today, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.”
2 of 9
BGP.
(33)-IA-3190-24.doc .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO.682 OF 2005
Abhinav Bharat ...Petitioner Versus The Union of India ...Respondent
Mr. Pankaj Phadnis, representative of petitioner, is present. Mr. B. A. Desai, Additional Solicitor General, for the respondent.
CORAM: DALVEER BHANDARI, C.J. & S. J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE: JULY 13, 2005.
P.C.
3 of 9
BGP.
(33)-IA-3190-24.doc .
Heard the representative of the petitioner. No order.
By order of the Court.
Sd/Associate
BGP. 4 of 9
(33)-IA-3190-24.doc .
are also reproduced hereunder :-
the prayer for grant of certificate for appeal to Supreme Court under Article 134A of the Constitution of India has drawn our attention to the substantial question of law as propounded by him, which has been mentioned at page No.136 of the paper-
BGP. 5 of 9
(33)-IA-3190-24.doc .
book of Interim Application No.2147 of 2024. The said substantial question of law as propounded by the Petitioner is quoted hereunder :-
Has Non Compliance of order of this Hon’ble Court of 20-042005 in WP (PIL) 682 of 2005 led to dismissal of Review Petition Dairy No.1990 of 2024 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 01-05-2024 and which dismissal has led to a peculiar situation where the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of 11-12-2023 in Re Article 370 of the Constitution of India can be cited by Islamic Republic of Pakistan to buttress its claim on the erstwhile Princely State of Junagarh in the International Court of Justice and if so what remedial measures can now be taken to protect Unity, Integrity and Sovereignty of the country?
(33)-IA-3190-24.doc .
grant of certificate of appeal to the Supreme Court, the said prayer also cannot be granted, which is hereby rejected.
BGP. 7 of 9
(33)-IA-3190-24.doc .
any other proceeding within a reasonable time. The Petitioner in this regard submits that he did approach this Court by making the oral prayer, however, the said prayer was also rejected by the Court vide order dated 13th July, 2005. The appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 13th July, 2005 was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 2nd January, 2006. In such circumstances, making a prayer for ensuring compliance of the order dated 20th April, 2005, at this juncture, after a gap of 19 years, in our opinion, will neither be proper nor appropriate. The prayer is thus rejected.
BGP. 8 of 9
(33)-IA-3190-24.doc .
may be available to him under law. So far as the prayer made by the Petitioner seeking a direction for recovery of amount of Rs.11 crores paid to the employees of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) is concerned, the said prayer also appears to be absolutely outside the scope of the instant Interim Application, which too is rejected.
[AMIT BORKAR, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
9 of 9
BGP.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the specific reliefs sought for compliance with an old order and for grant of certificate under Article 134A are maintainable.
Whether the State of Maharashtra and BMC are liable to be impleaded in the present proceeding.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
ABHINAV BHARAT
UNION OF INDIA
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA
AMIT BORKAR
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
