Bombay High Court
Forum For Fast Justice Through Its ... vs Government Of Maharashtra on 15 January, 2024
2024:BHC-OS:732-DB
Digitally signed
by MULEY
SHUBHAM
MULEY PRAVINRAO 1 PIL-47-2020-J.doc
SHUBHAM Date:
PRAVINRAO 2024.01.15
18:38:09
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 47 OF 2020
1. Forum For Fast Justice
through its Secretary Ashish Mehta
having his office at Kuber Bhuvan,
Bajaj Road, Vile Parle (West),
Mumbai - 400 056
Mobile No. 9967723000
PAN No. AAATF 2471J
2. Bhagvanji Raiyani S/o Ghunsabhai
Vashram Raiyani
R/o Kuber Bhavan, Bajaj Road,
Vile Parle (West), Mumbai - 400 056
Mobile No. 9820403912
PAN No. AAAPR8520N
Email address: [email protected] ... Petitioners
V/s.
Government of Maharashtra
Through its Minister in Charge
Department of Finance,
Madame Cama Road, Mantralaya,
Mumbai- 400032 ... Respondent
-------------------------
Mr. Bhagvanji Raiyani, Petitioner-in-person present.
Mrs. P. H. Kantharia, Government Pleader for Respondent-State.
-------------------------
CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. &
ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
RESERVED ON : 3rd JANUARY, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 15th JANUARY, 2024
Shubham 1/10
::: Uploaded on - 15/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 16/01/2024 06:08:25 :::
2 PIL-47-2020-J.doc
JUDGMENT:
(PER ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)
1. By way of the present Petition filed in the public
interest, the Petitioners have sought the following reliefs, viz.
"(a) To direct the Respondent State to lower down the salaries
of MLAs to the average level of those of other States' MLAs
salaries i.e. Rs.1,15,000 per month as per the list at Ex. F
in para 12.
(b) To direct to reduce the perks provided to MLAs and Ex.
MLAs as suggested by the panel of judges to be appointed
to consider the suggestions made in the petitioners'
averments in para no.11 and arrived through interviews of
some of the MLAs after inviting suggestions and objections
from public.
(c) To direct not to provide any salaries and perks to those
MLAs whose assets are over Rs.5 crore and paying income
tax upto the highest tax rate of 30% or prevailing at the
time of the judgment.
(d) The court may suggest to the commission to invite the
petitioner for an interview separately to hear his views in
the matter.
(e) The Hon'ble Court to appoint yet more Judicial Commission
having few high ranking retired IPS Officers to review the
threat perception of all the State VIPs including that of the
petitioner's, for whose services the State Police and
comandos are oppointed to protect them to verify that the
threats are real and if so upto what extent or just for
appeasement, nepotism and status. The commission's
report to be filed before the court for appropriate order on
amendments of The Maharashtra Legislature Members
Salaries and Allowance Act, 1956 of last several years
amendments till they reach the level of around Rs.1,15,000
per month salary and other allowances.
(f) The Court may direct the Respondent State to quash /
repeal all amendments on MLAs' salary from 2020
downwards upto the level of Rs.1.15 lakh or thereabout
and relevant other financial perks and allowances prevailing
on the then amendment.
3 PIL-47-2020-J.doc
(g) The Hon'ble Court may be asked the Respondent State to
appoint through Principal Judge of Local District Court,
panel headed by a retired Judge, few eminent citizens and
the concerned MLA under his jurisdiction spend Local Area
Fund of Rs.3 crore alloted to every MLA."
2. Mrs. Kantharia, Learned Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of Respondent at the outset raised a
preliminary objection and submitted that the issue raised in the
present Petition, had already been decided by this Court in an
earlier Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the case of Shree
Sandeep Pandurang Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.1
She submitted that thereafter another PIL 2 raising a similar
challenge was filed which was also dismissed by this Court. She
submitted that copies of both these judgements/orders were
annexed to the Affidavit in Reply filed on behalf of the State of
Maharashtra. She then invited our attention to the order dated
20th January, 2023 passed in the present Petition by which the
Petitioners had sought time to go through the said judgments.
She pointed out that the Petitioner had thereafter not filed any
Rejoinder to the said Affidavit-in-Reply nor dealt with either of
the said judgments.
2 PIL No. 164 of 2016 Kakasaheb Damodhar Kakde vs The State of Maharashtra
4 PIL-47-2020-J.doc
3. When we inquired of Mr. Raiyani i.e., Petitioner No. 2
appearing in person, as to how the present Petition would be
maintainable in light of the judgement of this Court in the case of
Shree Sandeep Pandurang Patil (supra), instead of answering the
query of the Court Mr. Raiyani proceeded to read out the entire
Petition. The Court asked Mr. Raiyani to advance legal
submissions and not merely read out the Petition. Mr. Raiyani
however proceeded to continue to read out the Petition in its
entirety. After he completed reading out the Petition, he tendered
written submissions which he also read out. We must record here
that Mr. Raiyani therefore did not make any legal submissions in
support of the aforesaid prayers, nor did he answer the query of
the Court as to how the Petition was maintainable in view of the
judgement of this Court in the case of Shree Sandeep Pandurang
Patil (Supra).
4. After having heard Mr. Raiyani at length and also
perusing the contents of the Petition for ourselves, we find that
the Petition is entirely devoid of merit. It is not in dispute that
inter alia the salaries and allowances of the MLA's are governed
by the Maharashtra Act No. XXXII of 2016. It is also not in
5 PIL-47-2020-J.doc
dispute that the constitutional validity of the said act was
challenged in the case of Shree Sandeep Pandurang Patil (supra)
where this Court while dismissing the Petition held as follows, viz.
"10. In the present case, they have challenged the
constitutional validity of the Act. Definitely we cannot
question the competency of the State to enact such law. This
is purely a policy matter where the State Legislature in its
wisdom has come out with such enactment. Nature of benefit
is not alien to any other State. Almost all the States in India
have made such provisions. Now the only question is why
there has to be enhancement of salaries and pensions to the
sitting and former Members of Legislature. With the price
index going up due to inflation, the cost of living naturally is
rising and the per capita income of the individual also is
calculated vis-a-vis the inflation. The pay commission takes
into consideration the inflation and likelihood of increase in
the cost of living for about 10 years and recommends how
the hike in the payment of salaries to various categories of
employees should be made, both who serve Union of India
and also respective States. When such policy decision in
hiking the salaries of other group of working class is possible,
we fail to understand why the salaries of Members of
Legislatures and also the pensions of former MLAs / MLCs
should not be increased. What amount should be paid as a
salary to the Members of State Legislature definitely is a
policy decision and the question is whether we should
intervene in such policy decision by invoking extraordinary
writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
11. All the averments and arguments referring to the
problems in the society, including the drought, deaths of
farmers being on increase indicated in the petition vis a vis
the wisdom in making the impugned enactment in question,
would be best suited for debate on a different Floor rather
than in a Court of law invoking discretionary writ jurisdiction
of this Court. Since it is a challenge with regard to feasibility
6 PIL-47-2020-J.doc
in given circumstances, we decline to interfere since no
constitutional principle being violated. There is nothing
arbitrary or unreasonable in the exercise undertaken under
questioned statute. We see no illegality in the exercise
undertaken.
12. In the light of above discussion and reasoning, we are of
the opinion that none of the grounds raised in the petition
could be entertained and accordingly the PIL is dismissed."
5. A copy of the aforesaid judgement is annexed by the
Respondent to the Affidavit in Reply. The Petitioner has neither
filed a Rejoinder nor has advanced any submissions of how the
same would not apply. It is only in the written submissions that
the Petitioner has stated, viz.
"1. With due appology to this Hon'ble Court, I have to bring
some proabilities which the court in dismissal of petitions of
similar nature as that of this petition cited in the affidavit
dated 9-8-2021 by the Respondent State, overlooked.
Without scandalising or lowering down of the majesty of
this court, I have to bring some unsavoury observations."
We find that a submission like the above deserves only to be
stated to be rejected. The Petitioner is required to make
submissions in law and not give his opinion to the Court. We have
for ourselves perused the judgement in the case of Sandeep
Pandurang Patil (Supra) and find that basis the same, the
question of entertaining this Petition does not arise.
7 PIL-47-2020-J.doc
6. Additionally, we must express our strong disapproval
for the manner in which this Petition has been filed and
presented. A perusal of the Petition shows that the same does
not contain a single legal ground in support of the reliefs which
have been prayed for. In prayer clause (f) of the Petition, the
Petitioner has specifically sought for repealing of amendments
which are carried out in Legislative Members' salaries and
allowances from the year 2020. The same is nothing but a
challenge to the constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Act
No.XXXII of 2016. The Petitioner thus having raised a
constitutional challenge, it was incumbent upon the Petitioner to
have demonstrated (i) that the legislature lacked the competence
to enact such amendments and (ii) that the amendments were in
violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution of India.
There is not a whisper in the Petition as to either of these
aspects.
7. Additionally, we must note that the Petition is only
replete with (what is stated to be) the results of random Google
searches and has annexed to it various newspaper articles
regarding poaching of elected representatives by political parties,
8 PIL-47-2020-J.doc
alleged horse trading of MLAs and security personnel provided to
VIPs. The Petitioner has in the grounds gone on to make various
absolutely generalized statements in respect of the MLAs, basis
which certain most unsavory comments have been made by the
Petitioner against all MLAs in general. We must express our
strong disapproval to such loose, unsavory and generalized
statements. At this stage it is useful to note that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey Vs. State
of West Bengal & Others3 inter alia held that nobody should be
allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching
the character of others as also held that No litigant has a right to
unlimited draught on the Courts and easy access to justice should
not be misused as a license to file misconceived and frivolous
petitions and that today people rush to Courts to file cases in
profusion under this attractive name of public interest. They must
inspire confidence in Courts and among the public.
8. Before parting with this judgment we must note that
this Court infact had occasion to deal with another PIL 4 filed by
the same Petitioner in which the Petitioner had sought relief inter
alia to lay down code of conduct etc. for the functioning of
3 (2004) 3 SCC 349
4 PIL (L) No. 41119 of 2022 Bhagvanji Raiyani Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
9 PIL-47-2020-J.doc
elected representatives. This Court while dismissing said PIL had
observed as follows, viz.
" This is yet another vague and generalized Public
Interest Petition filed by this Petitioner. Filing such
Petitions has become a regular occurrence, with the
Petitioner presenting one or two such Petitions nearly
every week."
"11. Now, we turn to the manner in which this
Petition is presented. Apart from the shoddy manner of
presentation, it has undertones of degrading the
institution of elected representatives itself. The tendency
to denigrate public offices through the misuse of Public
Interest litigation is a concerning phenomenon that must
be addressed and discouraged. While PIL serves as a
powerful tool for seeking justice and upholding the rights
of the public, it should not be employed as a means to
demean or undermine the dignity of public offices.
Individual derelictions of duties apart, as an institution,
the elected representatives play a pivotal role in the
functioning of the government.
12. We place on record our disapproval of the
numerous poorly drafted and haphazardly presented
petitions persistently filed by this Petitioner, subjecting
the Court to a monologue, thereby consuming valuable
judicial time and resources. It is essential to exercise
prudence and diligence in preparing and presenting
petitions before the Court, ensuring that they are well-
founded and supported by adequate research and
compelling arguments, avoiding using intemperate
language. It is crucial to maintain respect and
professionalism in all legal pleadings, regardless of the
nature of the case or the parties involved. The PIL
Petitioner must try to understand the relevant legal
principles, administrative and constitutional law, and the
scope of writ jurisdiction, and if they cannot do so, seek
legal assistance. That is so because the judicial system
operates with limited time and resources, and frivolous or
10 PIL-47-2020-J.doc
poorly presented PILs burden the Court and hinder the
resolution of other genuine and urgent cases."
9. We find that the above observations apply on all fours
to the facts of the present case as well. Thus, for the aforesaid
reasons, the Petition is dismissed.
(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
