Bombay High Court
Janhit Manch And Ors vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 24 January, 2024
Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT
2024:BHC-OS:2014
GOPAL
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date:
2024.02.06
14:05:36 +0530 1 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.63 OF 2003
Janhit Manch and Ors. : Petitioners
Vs.
Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh & Ors. : Respondents
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.37 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.63 OF 2003
Shri Pramod Shende,
Dy. Speaker
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly
and Anr. : Applicants
In the matter between
Janhit Manch and Ors. : Petitioners
Vs.
Shri Vilasrao Deshmukh & Ors. : Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.774 OF 2003
Brashtachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana,
Mumbai and Anr. : Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. : Respondents
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.38 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.774 OF 2003
LGC 1 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/02/2024 07:03:40 :::
2 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc
Shri Pramod Shende & Anr. : Applicants
In the matter between
Brashtachar Nirmoolan Sanghatana,
Mumb ai and anr. : Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. : Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1602 OF 2003
Padmakar Nandekar
Secretary General,
Cuffe Parade Residents Association
and Anr. : Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. : Respondents
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.36 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1602 OF 2003
Mr. Arun Gujrathi,
the Speaker,
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly
and Anr. : Applicants
In the matter between
Cuffe Parade Residents Association
and Anr. : Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. : Respondents
LGC 2 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/02/2024 07:03:40 :::
3 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2644 OF 2004
Janhit Manch
through its President
Bhagvanji Raiyani and Ors. : Petitioners
Vs.
The Municipal Commissioner,
Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation
and Anr. : Respondents
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.379 OF 2007
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2644 OF 2004
Janhit Manch
through its President
Bhagvanji Raiyani and Ors. : Petitioners
Vs.
The Municipal Commissioner,
Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation
and Anr. : Respondents
AND
Janhit Manch
through its President : Petitioner/
Bhagvanji Raiyani Applicant
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.435 OF 2005
Janhit Manch
through its President
Bhagvanji Raiyani and Ors. : Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. : Respondents
LGC 3 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/02/2024 07:03:40 :::
4 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.82 OF 2007
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.435 OF 2005
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.166 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION 435 OF 2005
WITH
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.130 OF 2009
Janhit Manch
through its President
Bhagvanji Raiyani and Ors. : Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. : Respondents
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.224 OF 2018
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.130 OF 2009
WITH
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.270 OF 2018
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2445 OF 2004
Janhit Manch : Applicant/
Orig. Petitioner
Janhit Manch
through its President
Bhagvanji Raiyani and Ors. : Petitioners
Vs.
Hon. Minister for Information,
Broadcusting & Culture & Ors. : Respondents
LGC 4 of 13
::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 12/02/2024 07:03:40 :::
5 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc
-----
Mr. Bhagvanji Raiyani Petitioner in person in Writ Petition
Nos.63 of 2003, 2644 of 2004, 435 of 2005, PIL No.130 of 2009
and for the Applicant in Notice of Motion No.270 of 2018.
None for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.774 of 2003.
None for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.1602 of 2003.
Mr. Girish Utangale a/w Mr. Saurabh Utangale i/by Utangale &
Co. for for Respondent - SRA.
Ms. P H Kantharia, GP a/w Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP for
Respondents-State in Writ Petition Nos.63 of 2003, 774 of 2003
and 1602 of 2003, 2644 of 2004, 435 of 2005
Mr. Abhay L. Patki, Addl. GP for the Respondents-State in PIL
No.130 of 2009.
Mr. Milind V. More, Addl. GP for Respondents-State in Notice of
Motion No.270 of 2018.
Ms. Oorja Dhond i/by Mr. S. K. Sonawane for the Respondent-
MCGM in Writ Petition No.2644 of 2004, PIL No.130 of 2009
------
CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 24th January 2024.
P.C.:
1. At the outset, it is necessary for us to set out that Mr.
Raiyani, who appears in person on behalf of Janhit Manch i.e.,
LGC 5 of 13
6 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc
the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 63 of 2003, 2644 of 2004,
435 of 2005, Public Interest Litigation No. 130 of 2009 and for
the Applicant in Notice of Motion No.270 of 2018 has been
repeatedly seeking listing of the numerous Petitions in which he
appears in person. Numerous praecipes have also been filed by
Mr. Raiyani seeking listing of these matters on a priority basis. It
will be useful at this stage itself to reproduce the contents of two
such praecipes filed by Mr. Raiyani in Writ Petition No. 2644 of
2004 which read thus, viz.
(i) Praecipe dated 26th September 2022
"I would like to remind to the 1stCourt through your
goodself on the following points. The court on 15 th march
2021, i.e. before 18 months ordered to take up my 26 PILs
+ 5 W.P.s on 19th June 2021, i.e. 15 months before Few
times I was informed that they would come on board on
such and such date and thereafter they came partly on
board but never reached, except once, One.
In my earlier praecipe, I had informed the court that I have
few months left in my life.
As court expects all litigants/advocates to punctually attend
but without commitment to finish the board itself
(ii) Praecipe dated 10th November 2022
LGC 6 of 13
7 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc
"I am a retired person of 85 and have only 17 months to
live more. The reason is I will sit on Fast Unto Death on
30eth January 2024, the death anniversy of Mahatma
Gandhi, unless the UOI and SC dont implement the Apex
Court Judgment dated 21 March 2002, increasing the
judges strength from 10.5 judges to 50 judges per million
population. The judgement is in favour of All India Judges
Association V/s. UOI and States being, 2002 (2) SCR 712
It is in the aforesaid backdrop that we have on a weekly basis
been listing a few of the Petitions filed by Mr. Raiyani and/or in
which Mr. Raiyani appears in person on behalf of the Petitioners.
2. Today however, when the above-mentioned Petitions
were called out Mr. Raiyani was not present. We therefore kept
the matters back to be called at 2:30 pm. When the matters
were called out at 2:30 pm, Mr. Raiyani appeared and instead of
arguing/making submissions on the merits of any of the
Petitions, he simply tendered a two page print out which he
submitted contained the guiding principles governing Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) as formulated by the late Chief Justice
Bhagwati. He then advised the Court to read, consider and
follow the same when deciding all PILs, including the present
LGC 7 of 13
8 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc
Petitions. When asked by the Court to argue the Petitions and
highlight the issue/s of public interest which arose in them, Mr.
Raiyani stated that he did not want to make any submissions
and that the Court should decide each of the Petitions after
taking into consideration the material tendered by him.
3. Given the above, two things have become manifestly
clear to us. First is that Mr. Raiyani has taken one to many
liberties with this Court in the capacity of a PIL Petitioner and
the second is that Mr. Raiyani/the Petitioners on whose behalf he
appears, cannot be said to be acting in the genuine public
interest. We say so for the following reasons, viz.
A. First, it is important to reiterate that concept of PIL's
evolved as more particularly set out by the Hon ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal vs
Balwant Singh Chaufal1 initially to allow public-
spirited individuals etc. to approach the Courts on
behalf of those who were unable to do so themselves
1 2010 (3) SCC 402
LGC 8 of 13
9 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc
essentially because of their socio-economic conditions
or otherwise distressed conditions. It was in this context
that the rule of locus standi and the traditional meaning
of aggrieved person was broadened and construed
more liberally to permit such persons to approach the
Court to highlight and/or espouse the cause of those
who though afflicted, could not approach the Court. The
second phase gave locus to individuals/organizations to
highlight issues regarding protection of ecology and
environment and the third phase gave locus to
individuals/organizations to highlight issues in order to
maintain purity in public administration and probity in
governance. Therefore, as we can see, the foremost and
only consideration, infact obligation, of a Petitioner who
approaches the Court in the public interest and thus
seeks relaxation of the traditional concept of locus
standi must only be to espouse the cause for which
such Petitioner approaches the Court and nothing else.
In the present case as noted above, Mr. Raiyani has
LGC 9 of 13
10 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc
despite being called upon, chosen not to make any
submissions whatsoever on the merits of any of the
Petitions in which he appears. Thus, in our view, Mr.
Raiyani would from that moment on instantly stand
denuded of the locus standi as a Petitioner who appears
in the public interest. It is thus we have as noted above,
that given the repeated mentioning of matters, the
loosely worded praecipes filed by Mr. Raiyani and finally
his failure to make submissions in any of the Petitions
but instead to go on to "advise" the Court on the
manner in which PILs should be decided that we have
find Mr. Raiyani has taken one too many liberties with
this Court.
B. Second, given the fact that Mr. Raiyani has chosen to
not make submissions on any of the Petitions leads us
to the irresistible conclusion that the same were never
filed in the genuine public interest in the first place. We
say so because all of the present Petitions have been
LGC 10 of 13
11 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc
filed prior to 2010 (PIL Rules) which inter alia require
Petitioners in PILs to submit an affidavit disclosing the
bonafides of the Petitioner, source of information of the
Petitioner and to give an undertaking to pay the costs
imposed, if any. It is the duty of the Court, as held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok
Kumar Pandey vs. State of W.B .2 to be satisfied
about (a) the credentials of the applicant (b) the prima
facie correctness or nature of information given by him
and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite.
Mr. Raiyani having chosen to abandon all the Petitions
when called upon to make submissions on merits has
thus effectively preempted the Court from testing any
of these aspects. It is thus we feel that Petitions do not
appear to have been filed in the genuine public interest.
4. Hence for the reasons stated above, we pass the
following order, viz.
2 2004 (3) SCC 349
LGC 11 of 13
12 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc
i. Writ Petition Nos. 63 of 2003, 2644 of 2004, 435 of
2005, Public Interest Litigation No.130 of 2009 and
Notice of Motion No.270 of 2018 in Writ Petition
No.2445 of 2004 are dismissed as having been
abandoned by the Petitioners. We make it clear
that we have not gone into the merits of any of the
Petitions given the above noted conduct, we feel
the same have not been filed in the genuine public
interest.
ii. Writ Petition Nos. 774 of 2003 and 1602 of 2003
which were tagged along with Writ Petition No. 63
of 2003 are dismissed for non-prosecution since
non appeared on behalf the Petitioners. We make it
clear that the reasoning set out in paragraph 3(A)
and (B) above will not apply in any manner to
these Petitions.
iii. In view of the above, all interlocutory applications
in Writ Petition Nos. 63 of 2003, 2644 of 2004, 435
LGC 12 of 13
13 (6-10) WP-63.2003&ors.doc
of 2005, Public Interest Litigation No.130 of 2009
are also dismissed.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
LGC 13 of 13
