Bombay High Court
Janhit Manch And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 14 July, 2022
Bench: Makarand Subhash Karnik
917-nmw140-2009 in oswp1325-2003
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 140 OF 2009
IN
PIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1325 OF 2003
Janhit Manch & Ors. ...Petitioners
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Bhagvanji Raiyani, applicant no.2, in person.
Mr. Milind More, Additional Government Pleader for
respondent no.1/State.
Mr. Abhay L. Patki for respondent no.2.
Ms. K. H. Mastakar for respondent no.5/MCGM.
CORAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ &
M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE: JULY 14, 2022
P.C.:
1. This notice of motion has been filed by the petitioners in
PIL Writ Petition No. 1325 of 2003 seeking inter alia the
following relief:
"(a) that the Respondents be directed to construct at
the earliest the toilets for the slumdwellers on Juhu
beach between Santacruz and Khar Danda as well as to
publish and implement guidelines for preventing water
pollution caused due to Ganpati, and Durga immersions
as well as other festivals in lieu of para 6 and 7 of the
order dated 22-7-2008.
(b) Ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (a) above;
(c) For costs of the Notice of Motion;
917-nmw140-2009 in oswp1325-2003
(d) For such other and further reliefs as the nature and
circumstances of the case may require."
2. It appears from Exhibit 'A' to the notice of motion that
PIL Writ Petition No. 1325 of 2003 was disposed of with
directions by a coordinate Bench vide judgment and order
dated 22nd July, 2008.
3. We have heard Mr. Raiyani, petitioner no.2 appearing in
person.
4. It appears from prayer (a) of the notice of motion that
the petitioners, in effect, pray for modification of the order
dated 22nd July, 2008.
5. Law is well settled that once proceedings stand finally
terminated by a judgment and order of the Court, the same
cannot be reopened except by preferring an application for
review on grounds such as those mentioned in Order 47 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. A notice of motion of the present
nature cannot be a substitute for a review petition.
6. That apart, we need to give due regard to the decision of
the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahma
Datt Sharma & Anr., reported in AIR 1987 SC 943. Law has
been declared therein in clear terms that the High Court
would have no jurisdiction to reopen proceedings, which stand
finally terminated, by entertaining a miscellaneous
application. We quote the relevant portion of the decision
hereunder:
"The High Court's order is not sustainable for yet
another reason. Respondents' writ petition challenging
the order of dismissal had been finally disposed of on
10.8.1984, thereafter nothing remained pending before
917-nmw140-2009 in oswp1325-2003
the High Court. No miscellaneous application could be
filed in the writ petition to revive proceedings in respect
of subsequent events after two years. If the respondent
was aggrieved by the notice dated 29.1.1986 he could
have filed a separate petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution challenging the validity of the notice as it
provided a separate cause of action to him. The
respondent was not entitled to assail validity of the
notice before the High Court by means of a
miscellaneous application in the writ petition which had
already been decided. The High Court had no jurisdiction
to entertain the application as no proceedings were
pending before it. The High Court committed error in
entertaining the respondent's application which was
founded on a separate cause of action. When
proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of writ
petition it is not open to the Court to reopen the
proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in
respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of
action. If this principle is not followed, there would be
confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings
would cease to have any meaning."
(emphasis ours)
7. In our considered opinion, there is no valid reason why
the salutary principle laid down in the above excerpt should
not apply in proceedings which are in the nature of a public
interest litigation. It is, after all, the jurisdiction conferred by
Article 226 of the Constitution that we exercise while trying a
litigation initiated in public interest. Entertaining grievances
after termination of the proceedings, as the Supreme Court
observed, would lead to chaos and confusion and the concept
of finality being attached to proceedings would have no
meaning. The petitioners not having filed a review petition
with appropriate ground(s) within time, we are also not
inclined to treat the notice of motion as a review petition.
917-nmw140-2009 in oswp1325-2003
8. Since we do not have the jurisdiction to entertain the
notice of motion filed in a finally disposed of writ petition
seeking relief, which was not granted by the parent order
dated 22nd July, 2008, the notice of motion stands disposed of
with the observation that if the petitioners have a fresh cause
of action for seeking relief, they will be at liberty to apply
before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
9. No costs.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
Digitally
signed by
ATUL ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
GANESH Date:
KULKARNI 2022.07.14
18:19:56
+0530
