Surendra Ramchandra Jichkar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 626 Bom

JUDGMENT

D.D. Sinha, J.

1. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.

2. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the writ petition No. 813/02 which was filed by the respondent No. 4 herein was a Public Interest Litigation propagating the public cause on behalf of Depty Signal Manila Mandal, Nagpur. In the writ petition, the petitioner wanted to canvas that in view of the location of the liquor shop of the appellant, there is a problem created for the residents of that locality and with a view to overcome the problem faced by the residents of the locality, the respondent No. 4 filed a writ petition No. 813/03 in the public interest. The observations in paragraph 14 of the impugned order by the learned Single Judge clearly demonstrate that the writ petition was in public interest and the learned Single Judge has entertained the same as Public Interest Litigation.

3. On the backdrop of these undisputed facts, it is absolutely clear to us that the writ petition No. 813/02 was a Public Interest Litigation. At this stage, it will be appropriate for us to consider the provisions of Clause 2A of Chapter IV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, I960 which reads thus:--

"2A. Public Interest Litigation matters be placed before the Division Bench, after obtaining orders from the Honourable the Chief Justice at Bombay and from the Senior most Judge available at the concerned Benches."

In view of the above referred specific provision, petition involving public interest is required to be heard only by the Division Bench, that too only after obtaining orders, if the matter is at Bombay from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and if the matter is before the Benches, from the Senior-most Judge available at the concerned Benches. The provision is absolutely unambiguous and clear and gives jurisdiction to entertain Public Interest Litigation only to the Division Bench, that too after obtaining necessary permission as contemplated in Clause 2A of Chapter IV of the Rules.

4. In the instant case, the powers exercised by the learned Single Judge by deciding the Public Interest Litigation are de hors and inconsistent with the provisions of Clause 2A of Chapter IV of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960 and, therefore, in our view the impugned order is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained in law. On this short ground, the same is quashed and set aside. Needless to mention that the respondent No. 4 is at liberty to take appropriate steps if it so desires to challenge the order of Commissioner.

5. For the reasons stated above, the Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed.

Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.