Bombay High Court
Akshay Anilkumar Jain vs The Secretary And Commissioner, ... on 21 August, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:33676-DB
402-aspil104-2024.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.104 OF 2024
Akshay Anilkumar Jain ... Petitioner
V/s.
The Secretary & Commissioner,
Maharashtra State Excise Dept.,
& Anr. ... Respondents
ATUL
Digitally
signed by
ATUL
GANESH
Mr. Asim Sarode with Mr. Vinaykumar Khatu and
GANESH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date:
2024.08.22
17:28:52
Ms. Shriya Awale for the petitioner.
+0530
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Government Pleader, with Mr. O.A.
Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader, with
Mrs. G.R. Raghuwanshi, Additional Government
Pleader for respondent Nos.1 & 2 - State.
CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ &
AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : AUGUST 21, 2024
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Sarode, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Kakade, learned Government Pleader.
2. This PIL petition purportedly filed in public interest seeks
to challenge Government Resolution dated 18 June 2024
whereby the State Government has restructured the staffing
pattern of controlling officers looking after excise related
matters.
402-aspil104-2024.doc
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the impugned Government Resolution is
irrational and ambiguous. Further submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that though the staffing pattern
has been restructured; however, the same will not be
workable for the reason that no corresponding infrastructural
facilities have been provided. He has further argued that the
impugned Government Resolution hampers public interest
inasmuch as the system evolved by issuing the impugned
Government Resolution for checking and controlling the excise
related matters is not efficient. He has also argued that the
jurisdiction of various staff under the impugned Government
Resolution has been vaguely defined which makes their
functioning ineffective. Lastly the learned counsel for the
petitioner has urged the Court to scrutinize the impugned
Government Resolution and issue appropriate directions for its
annulment.
4. It is well established that in service matters, public
interest litigation is not maintainable, except for a writ of quo
warranto where appointment of any occupier of the public
office is challenged. Reference in this regard may be made to
the judgment in the case of Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India &
402-aspil104-2024.doc
Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 363.
5. When we peruse the impugned Government Resolution,
what we find is that it is nothing but restructuring of the
staffing pattern, which in terms of one of the judgments of
the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pushpa Rani & other
connected matters reported in (2008) 9 SCC 242 is the sole
prerogative of the State Government. In Pushpa Rani (supra)
it has been held by the Apex Court that it is not for Court to
suggest manner of restructuring of cadres for the purpose of
improving efficiency of administration.
6. As to what particular staffing pattern has to be put in
place and other related issues exclusively lie in the realm of
the State Government. Accordingly, challenge to such
Government Resolution in a public interest litigation will not
be maintainable. We may also observe that the petitioner has
utterly failed to point out infringement of any constitutional or
legal rights and accordingly in absence thereof we are of the
opinion that this public interest litigation is not maintainable.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to
entertain this public interest litigation. The PIL petition stands
dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-, to be deposited by the
402-aspil104-2024.doc
petitioner with the Registrar (Judicial-1) of this Court, who will
remit the same in the accounts of the Maharashtra State Legal
Services Authority, failing which the costs shall be recovered
from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
