Gopal S/O. Babruvan Lokhande vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10411 Bom

                                                                 cri-pil-14.20
                                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


               7 CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION
                        NO.14 OF 2020
            WITH APPLN/2905/2021 IN CRPIL/14/2020

                     GOPAL S/O. BABRUVAN LOKHANDE
                                 VERSUS
                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                   ...
      Mr.Angad L. Kanade Advocate for Petitioner.
      Mr.S.J. Salgare, A.P.P. for Resp. Nos. 1 to 4.
      Mr.A.B. Dhongade Advocate for Resp. No.5.
      Mr.A.M. Gaikwad Advocate for Resp. No.6.
                   ...

                 CORAM:          SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND
                                 ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.

                 DATE :         9th OCTOBER, 2023

 ORDER :

1. Today the matter is appearing as per the circulation note

given on behalf of the petitioner. In fact on 5 th January 2023 this

Court had considered that the intervenor has filed a suit against

respondent No.5 - Corporation seeking declaration about their

ownership over the disputed property as also claiming

themselves to be in possession and seeking perpetual injunction

against it from disturbing possession and therefore the matter

was adjourned sine die. When we called upon the learned

cri-pil-14.20

Advocate appearing for the petitioner to state the status of the

suit, as to whether it is decided, he submits that since 1962 the

disputed property was standing in the name of MSRTC but with

some mala fide intention after the notice of this Petition was

issued, the intervenor has filed the suit and thereby wants to

stall the proceedings.

2. It is to be noted that when the substantial suit is filed

before the Civil Court which can be said to be the appropriate

Court to decide the ownership and possession over the disputed

property, which a Constitutional Court in its writ jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot go into. In

other words, in the constitutional powers under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India or even in Public Interest Litigation, the

disputed facts cannot be addressed to, then this Court would be

slow in taking up the matter and therefore, it was adjourned

sine die, thereby indicating that if the suit gets decided, then

only the matter would be taken up. We cannot go into the

intention of a party to file a suit.

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Kanade also prayed that the

direction should be given to the concerned Court to decide the

cri-pil-14.20

suit in time bound manner. However we refrain ourselves, for the

obvious reason that each party should get every opportunity and

every kind of averment and defence can be allowed to be raised.

However when respondent No.5 is made party to the said

proceedings, we hope and trust that respondent No.5 is

represented by an Advocate before the trial Court and then the

parties may co-operate the concerned Court and get the matter

disposed of as early as possible. No directions, therefore, can be

given in this Petition.

4. Petition to be listed only after the decision of the suit,

thereby indicating and producing evidence in the form of either

Judgment or order showing that the suit has been disposed of.

 [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE]                [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
       JUDGE                                  JUDGE
 asb/OCT23