Bombay High Court
Dinshaw Rusi Mehta vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 24 January, 2024
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
905-OSWPL-1857-2024+.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 1857 OF 2024
Satyen Kapadia ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through Government ...Respondents
Pleader & Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2168 OF 2024
Zoru Bhathena ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through Government ...Respondents
Pleader & Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2400 OF 2024
Dinshaw Rusi Mehta & Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra Through Government ...Respondents
Pleader & Ors
Mr Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, with Navroz Seerwai,
Senior Advocate, Dinyar Madon, Senior Advocate, Shyam
Mehta, Senior Advocate, Sharan Jagtiani, Senior
Advocate, Kunal Dwarkadas, Rishika Harish, Aditya Bapat,
Suraj Iyer & Gauri Joshi, i/b Ganesh & Co, for the Petitioner in
WPL/1857/2024 & WPL/2168/2024.
Page 1 of 5
24th January 2024
::: Uploaded on - 24/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 25/01/2024 08:39:28 :::
905-OSWPL-1857-2024+.DOC
Mr Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate, with Zal Andhyarujina,
Senior Advocate, Cyrus Ardeshir & Ziyad Madon, i/b Zain AK
Najam-Es-Sani, for the Petitioners in WPL/2400/2024.
Dr Birendra Saraf, Advocate General, with PH Kantharia, GP &
Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP, for the Respondent-State in all three
matters.
Mr Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate, with Sarosh Bharucha, Sameer
Tapia & Rohan Marathe, i/b ALMT Legal, for Respondent No. 5
in all three matters.
Mr Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate, with Ranjit Thorat, Senior
Advocate, Joel Carlos, Pallavi Thakar & Rupali Adhate, i/b
Sunil Sonawane, for the Respondent-MCGM.
Mr Prashant Gaikwad, Assistant Commissioner (Estates), is present.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
DATED: 24th January 2024
PC:-
1. The first of these three Petitions was before us last week. It
was moved in urgency. The State Government and the MCGM
were served only on that day. We ourselves had not fully seen the
papers. We kept the matter today. Even on that day, we were told
that a second Petition was in process of filing. But we were not told
what second Petition was.
2. There are now three Petitions. One of them is by a member of
the Royal Western India Turf Club ("RWITC"). All three Petitions
are in absolutely identical terms with identical annexures. They
relate to an apparent proposal by the State Government or the
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ("MCGM") in regard
to some portions of the Race Course land at Mahalaxmi. That is all
24th January 2024
905-OSWPL-1857-2024+.DOC
that we are prepared to say today. Mr Rohatgi for the MCGM, Dr
Saraf for the State Government and possibly, Mr Naik for RWITC
all raise a preliminary point. This has nothing to do with the merits
of the matters. It is nothing at all to do with the locus properly so
called of the Petitioners. It is simply a question of whether these
Petitions lie within the roster assignment of this Court.
3. A Division Bench of which one of us (GS Patel J) was a
Member with Madhav Jamdar J has previously held in Vasudev
Darra & Ors v Registrar General & Ors 1 that the Chief Justice is the
'Master of the Roster', which is the well settled legal principle of
several centuries' standing. But the Court also held that if a Bench
takes a matter outside its assigned roster, it acts without jurisdiction
and the resultant order is a nullity. Mr Dwarkadas, Mr Seervai and
Mr Kadam for the Petitioners may have a lot to say on whether or
not it is a PIL. But the way the word 'Public Interest Litigation' is
used in the roster is not necessarily dependant on the interpretation
of that expression in judgments. It is more a common understanding
relating to the distribution of work between benches.
4. We ourselves are extremely reluctant to even venture to take
up a matter which is possibly or even arguably outside our roster. In
our view, that way lies only chaos and anarchy in the administration
of the affairs of the Court. We must defer to settle principles and to
the authority of master of the roster. Judicial discipline demands
this.
1 2021 SCC OnLine 5514.
24th January 2024
905-OSWPL-1857-2024+.DOC
5. There is some urgency expressed because it seems that an
Extraordinary General Meeting of the RWITC is scheduled to be
held on 30th January 2024 but e-voting is to commence from 27th
January 2024. We are expressing no view on the merits of that either
but only point out that these dates are cited as ground for urgency.
6. We ourselves indicated that we would prefer if an
administrative order was obtained assigning the matters to some
bench. We ourselves have no objection in taking up the matters
immediately and are in fact prepared to take them up as soon as the
administrative order is obtained, if necessary even this afternoon or
tomorrow morning.
7. We request Ms RC Kale, Master and Assistant Prothonotary,
to urgently obtain the necessary administrative directions in regard
to all three matters. For the purposes of assisting the Registrar we
note that in the third Petition, the Petitioner or Petitioners are
members of the RWITC. In the first two Petitions, the Petitioners
say that they are rate payers, users of the Race Course area but also
say that there is a wider public concern that needs protection. We
are setting this out at the broadest level to assist the Registrar in
making the necessary submission.
8. Subject to the administrative order being one assigning the
matter to this Bench (but not otherwise), we take the liberty of
listing the matter first on board tomorrow, 25th January 2024. If the
order is obtained earlier, parties are at liberty to mention the matters
to have them taken up at 2.30 pm today.
24th January 2024
905-OSWPL-1857-2024+.DOC
9. On the last occasion, and in the circumstances we have set
out above, we expressed the hope that no precipitate action would
be taken. None has been taken. We do not see how any action can be
taken between today and tomorrow.
(Kamal Khata, J) (G. S. Patel, J)
24th January 2024
