Dismissed

Janhit Manch and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jan 2024PIL/130/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses numerous writ petitions and public interest litigations filed by Janhit Manch because the petitioner, appearing in person, repeatedly refused to make oral submissions on the merits and instead advised the court on PIL principles. The court ruled the petitions were not filed in genuine public interest and were abandoned.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petitions Nos. 63 of 2003, 774 of 2003, 1602 of 2003, 2644 of 2004, 435 of 2005 and PIL No. 130 of 2009 dismissed.

Janhit Manch and 2 Ors. Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2024.02.06 14:05:36 +0530

¶2

1 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.63 OF 2003

¶4

Janhit Manch and Ors. : Petitioners Vs. Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh & Ors. : Respondents

¶5

WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.37 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO.63 OF 2003

¶6

Shri Pramod Shende, Dy. Speaker Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and Anr. : Applicants In the matter between Janhit Manch and Ors. : Petitioners Vs. Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh & Ors. : Respondents

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.774 OF 2003

¶9

Brashtachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana, Mumbai and Anr. : Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : Respondents

¶10

WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.38 OF 2013 IN

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.774 OF 2003

¶12

1 of 13

¶13

LGC

¶14

2 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc

¶15

Shri Pramod Shende & Anr. : Applicants

¶16

In the matter between

¶17

Brashtachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana, Mumb ai and anr. : Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : Respondents

¶18

WITH

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO.1602 OF 2003

¶20

Padmakar Nandekar Secretary General, Cuffe Parade Residents Association and Anr. Vs.

¶21

: Petitioners

¶22

State of Maharashtra and Ors. : Respondents

¶23

WITH

¶24

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.36 OF 2013 IN

¶25

WRIT PETITION NO.1602 OF 2003

¶26

Mr. Arun Gujrathi, the Speaker, Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and Anr.

¶27

: Applicants

¶28

In the matter between

¶29

Cuffe Parade Residents Association and Anr. : Petitioners Vs.

¶30

State of Maharashtra and Ors. : Respondents

¶31

2 of 13

¶32

LGC

¶33

3 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc

¶34

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2644 OF 2004

¶35

Janhit Manch through its President Bhagvanji Raiyani and Ors. : Petitioners Vs.

¶36

The Municipal Commissioner, Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr.

¶37

: Respondents

¶38

WITH

¶39

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.379 OF 2007 IN

¶40

WRIT PETITION NO.2644 OF 2004

¶41

Janhit Manch through its President Bhagvanji Raiyani and Ors. : Petitioners Vs. The Municipal Commissioner, Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Anr. : Respondents AND Janhit Manch through its President : Petitioner/ Bhagvanji Raiyani Applicant

¶42

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.435 OF 2005

¶43

Janhit Manch through its President Bhagvanji Raiyani and Ors. : Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : Respondents

¶44

3 of 13

¶45

LGC

¶46

4 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc

¶47

WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.82 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.435 OF 2005 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.166 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION 435 OF 2005

¶48

WITH

¶49

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.130 OF 2009

¶50

Janhit Manch through its President Bhagvanji Raiyani and Ors. : Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : Respondents

¶51

WITH

¶52

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.224 OF 2018 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.130 OF 2009

¶53

WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.270 OF 2018 IN

¶54

WRIT PETITION NO.2445 OF 2004

¶55

Janhit Manch : Applicant/ Orig. Petitioner Janhit Manch through its President Bhagvanji Raiyani and Ors. : Petitioners Vs.

¶56

Hon. Minister for Information, Broadcusting & Culture & Ors. : Respondents

¶57

4 of 13

¶58

LGC

¶59

5 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc

¶60

� Mr. Bhagvanji Raiyani Petitioner in person in Writ Petition Nos.63 of 2003, 2644 of 2004, 435 of 2005, PIL No.130 of 2009 and for the Applicant in Notice of Motion No.270 of 2018.

¶61

None for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.774 of 2003.

¶62

None for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1602 of 2003.

¶63

Mr. Girish Utangale a/w Mr. Saurabh Utangale i/by Utangale & Co. for for Respondent – SRA.

¶64

Ms. P H Kantharia, GP a/w Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP for Respondents-State in Writ Petition Nos.63 of 2003, 774 of 2003 and 1602 of 2003, 2644 of 2004, 435 of 2005

¶65

Mr. Abhay L. Patki, Addl. GP for the Respondents-State in PIL No.130 of 2009.

¶66

Mr. Milind V. More, Addl. GP for Respondents-State in Notice of Motion No.270 of 2018.

¶67

Ms. Oorja Dhond i/by Mr. S. K. Sonawane for the RespondentMCGM in Writ Petition No.2644 of 2004, PIL No.130 of 2009

¶68

CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 24^th January 2024.

¶69

P.C.:

¶70

At the outset, it is necessary for us to set out that Mr.

¶71

Raiyani, who appears in person on behalf of Janhit Manch i.e.,

¶72

5 of 13

¶73

LGC

¶74

6 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc

¶75

the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 63 of 2003, 2644 of 2004, 435 of 2005, Public Interest Litigation No. 130 of 2009 and for the Applicant in Notice of Motion No.270 of 2018 has been repeatedly seeking listing of the numerous Petitions in which he appears in person. Numerous praecipes have also been filed by Mr. Raiyani seeking listing of these matters on a priority basis. It will be useful at this stage itself to reproduce the contents of two such praecipes filed by Mr. Raiyani in Writ Petition No. 2644 of 2004 which read thus, viz.

¶76

(i) Praecipe dated 26^th September 2022

¶77

“I would like to remind to the 1^st Court through your goodself on the following points. The court on 15^th march 2021, i.e. before 18 months ordered to take up my 26 PILs + 5 W.P.s on 19^th June 2021, i.e. 15 months before Few times I was informed that they would come on board on such and such date and thereafter they came partly on board but never reached, except once, One.

¶78

In my earlier praecipe, I had informed the court that I have few months left in my life.

¶79

As court expects all litigants/advocates to punctually attend but without commitment to finish the board itself�

¶80

(ii) Praecipe dated 10^th November 2022

¶81

6 of 13

¶82

LGC

¶83

7 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc

¶84

“I am a retired person of 85 and have only 17 months to live more. The reason is I will sit on Fast Unto Death on 30eth January 2024, the death anniversy of Mahatma Gandhi, unless the UOI and SC don t implement the Apex� Court Judgment dated 21 March 2002, increasing the judges strength from 10.5 judges to 50 judges per million population. The judgement is in favour of All India Judges Association V/s. UOI and States being, 2002 (2) SCR 712�

¶85

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that we have on a weekly basis been listing a few of the Petitions filed by Mr. Raiyani and/or in which Mr. Raiyani appears in person on behalf of the Petitioners.

¶86

Today however, when the above-mentioned Petitions were called out Mr. Raiyani was not present. We therefore kept the matters back to be called at 2:30 pm. When the matters were called out at 2:30 pm, Mr. Raiyani appeared and instead of arguing/making submissions on the merits of any of the Petitions, he simply tendered a two page print out which he submitted contained the guiding principles governing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as formulated by the late Chief Justice Bhagwati. He then advised the Court to read, consider and� � follow the same when deciding all PILs, including the present

¶87

7 of 13

¶88

LGC

¶89

8 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc

¶90

Petitions. When asked by the Court to argue the Petitions and highlight the issue/s of public interest which arose in them, Mr. Raiyani stated that he did not want to make any submissions and that the Court should decide each of the Petitions after taking into consideration the material tendered by him.

¶91

Given the above, two things have become manifestly clear to us. First is that Mr. Raiyani has taken one to many liberties with this Court in the capacity of a PIL Petitioner and the second is that Mr. Raiyani/the Petitioners on whose behalf he appears, cannot be said to be acting in the genuine public interest. We say so for the following reasons, viz.

¶92

A. First, it is important to reiterate that concept of PIL’s evolved as more particularly set out by the Hon ble� Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs Balwant Singh Chaufal¹ initially to allow publicspirited individuals etc. to approach the Courts on behalf of those who were unable to do so themselves

¶93

1 2010 (3) SCC 402

¶94

8 of 13

¶95

LGC

¶96

9 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc

¶97

essentially because of their socio-economic conditions or otherwise distressed conditions. It was in this context that the rule of locus standi and the traditional meaning of �aggrieved person� was broadened and construed more liberally to permit such persons to approach the Court to highlight and/or espouse the cause of those who though afflicted, could not approach the Court. The second phase gave locus to individuals/organizations to highlight issues regarding protection of ecology and environment and the third phase gave locus to individuals/organizations to highlight issues in order to maintain purity in public administration and probity in governance. Therefore, as we can see, the foremost and only consideration, infact obligation, of a Petitioner who approaches the Court in the public interest and thus seeks relaxation of the traditional concept of locus standi must only be to espouse the cause for which such Petitioner approaches the Court and nothing else. In the present case as noted above, Mr. Raiyani has

¶98

9 of 13

¶99

LGC

¶100

10 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc

¶101

despite being called upon, chosen not to make any submissions whatsoever on the merits of any of the Petitions in which he appears. Thus, in our view, Mr. Raiyani would from that moment on instantly stand denuded of the locus standi as a Petitioner who appears in the public interest. It is thus we have as noted above, that given the repeated mentioning of matters, the loosely worded praecipes filed by Mr. Raiyani and finally his failure to make submissions in any of the Petitions but instead to go on to “advise” the Court on the manner in which PILs should be decided that we have find Mr. Raiyani has taken one too many liberties with this Court.

¶102

B. Second, given the fact that Mr. Raiyani has chosen to not make submissions on any of the Petitions leads us to the irresistible conclusion that the same were never filed in the genuine public interest in the first place. We say so because all of the present Petitions have been

¶103

10 of 13

¶104

LGC

¶105

11 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc

¶106

filed prior to 2010 (PIL Rules) which inter alia require Petitioners in PILs to submit an affidavit disclosing the bonafides of the Petitioner, source of information of the Petitioner and to give an undertaking to pay the costs imposed, if any. It is the duty of the Court, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B .² to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. Mr. Raiyani having chosen to abandon all the Petitions when called upon to make submissions on merits has thus effectively preempted the Court from testing any of these aspects. It is thus we feel that Petitions do not appear to have been filed in the genuine public interest.

¶107

Hence for the reasons stated above, we pass the following order, viz.

2 2004 (3) SCC 349

11 of 13

LGC

12 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc

¶112

i. Writ Petition Nos. 63 of 2003, 2644 of 2004, 435 of 2005, Public Interest Litigation No.130 of 2009 and Notice of Motion No.270 of 2018 in Writ Petition No.2445 of 2004 are dismissed as having been abandoned by the Petitioners. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of any of the Petitions given the above noted conduct, we feel the same have not been filed in the genuine public interest.

¶113

ii. Writ Petition Nos. 774 of 2003 and 1602 of 2003 which were tagged along with Writ Petition No. 63 of 2003 are dismissed for non-prosecution since non appeared on behalf the Petitioners. We make it clear that the reasoning set out in paragraph 3(A) and (B) above will not apply in any manner to these Petitions.

¶114

iii. In view of the above, all interlocutory applications in Writ Petition Nos. 63 of 2003, 2644 of 2004, 435

¶115

12 of 13

¶116

LGC

¶117

13 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc

¶118

of 2005, Public Interest Litigation No.130 of 2009 are also dismissed.

¶119

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶120

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶121

13 of 13

¶122

LGC

Janhit Manch and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janhit Manch and 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivangi Agarwal and Ors. vs the Union of India and Anr.

Gopal S/O Ganpatrao Amrutkar and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secretary to Honble Chief Minister, Mumbai and Others

Kamal Jagdish Singh vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Abhinav Bharat Congress through Pankaj K Phadnisffd vs State of Maharashtra

Pralhad Ramaji Ingole Vs Union of India through Secretary and Others

Vanashakti and Anr. Vs Revenue and Forest Dept. ,State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar National Asso. of Engineers, Nagpur Thr. President, Methaji S. Bhaladhare vs the State of Maha., Thr. Principal Secretary, Higher and Tech. Education Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Janhit Manch and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Dattatray Kaluram Ghule vs Dyanamic Realty Enterprises

Chetan Hingu and Anr. vs Sssc Escatics Private Limited and 6 Ors.

Tata Capital Financial Services Limited vs International Print O Pac

Janhit Manch and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Janhit Manch and Ors. Vs Bmc and Ors.

Uma Upendranath Bhrany vs Modella Steels and Alloys Limited