0

Bombay High Court quashes PIL which is poorly drafted and presented; calls it haphazard to the justice system

TITLE : Forum for fast Justice V University of Mumbai

CORAM : Hon’ble Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya

DATE :  15th  January 2024

CITATION : PIL No.49 of 2024

FACTS

A PIL was filed to direct the university and BCI to verify whether all law colleges under the jurisdiction of Mumbai University has functioning legal aid cells and to grant funds to run legal aid cells. The maintainability of the petition was challenged in the current case. It was argued by the petitioners that the PIL is not vague and invoked Article 39-A of the constitution.

LAWS INVOLVED

Article 39-A of the Constitution of India provides for “equal justice” and “free legal aid” and it was for the State to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice.

ISSUES

Whether the PIL is maintainable

JUDGEMENT

The court observed that the petitioners did not present any material on record which proves that the state is not fulfilling its objective on legal aid. There is no legal basis to the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner has also not proved maintainability in the court.

The court took reference to another PIL which was considered to be baseless. It stated that poorly drafted and haphazardly presented petitions will not be entertained by the court. It firmly held that :

“the judicial system operates with limited time and resources, and frivolous or poorly presented PILs burden the Court and hinder the resolution of other genuine and urgent cases”

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

0

The burden of proof to prove the unconstitutionality of a subordinate legislation lies heavily upon the party challenging it : Bombay HC

TITLE : Sandeep Thakur v State of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S.Doctor

DATE :  22nd  December, 2023

CITATION : PIL No. 123 of 2016

FACTS

A PIL was filed expressing concerns about the parking spaces as laid down in the Unified Development Control And Promotion Regulations. As per the guidelines it gives powers to the authorities to increase the parking requirements by modifying the existing regulations. The contentions is that the state government has acted arbitrarily rendering the provisions of UDCPR null and void. The opposing counsel held that the UDCPR is a subordinate legislation and that it does not violate the provisions of the constitution. In the prayer of PIL, it wished that the court direct Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NNMC) to revise the norms for parking spaces based on the data of ownership of vehicles and density. The state argued that the laws has been modified through the Maharashtra Regional And Town Planning Act.

LAWS INVOLVED

Section 37(1aa) of MRTP act gives the power to the state government to modify any act or legislation in the matter of public interest through the virtue of a notification published in the official gazette.

ISSUES

Whether the UDCPR is unconstitutional and arbitrary?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that a subordinate legislation is not as immune from the challenge of a statute. It can be questioned on the grounds available for questioning or challenging an act of legislation. Subordinate legislation can be challenged on the ground of being contrary to any act of parliament or through a ground of unreasonableness. Such unreasonableness should be in the sense of arbitrariness and not just reasonability.

It is presumed that a subordinate legislation is constitutional and it is the duty of the petitioners to prove the unconstitutionality of it. The court stated that the previous PIL judgement on the same issue noticed that there is a need for better parking spaces.

The court directed NMMC to take a better look on the need to have better parking spaces as per the provisions of UDCPR.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

click here to view judgement

0
click to view the judgement

Supreme Court Leaves Law Unresolved If PIL Is not at all Maintainable in Service Matters

Title: Pratap Singh Bist v. The Director, Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Decided on: 03 November, 2023

+ Diary No. 41779/2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta

Introduction

Recently, the Supreme Court expressed skepticism about the Delhi High Court’s ruling that a PIL is “not at all” maintainable in Service Matters, referring to the matter as a “debatable issue” and hearing an appeal stemming from it. As a result, the Court has left the matter open, and the proper case will decide this.

Facts of the Case

In this instance, a writ petition contesting the appointments of respondents (no. 5 to 17) to the position of teacher was brought in 2017 as a Public Interest Litigation by one Pratap Singh Bist (Petitioner). These appointments were made in 2008 through the New Delhi-based Directorate of Education. They were accused of lacking the necessary credentials to be employed as teachers. Nonetheless, the Delhi High Court declined to intervene in relation to these contested nominations in its contested ruling. After reviewing the respondent’s comprehensive affidavit, the court determined that the necessary qualification was there. It was decided that the respondents, who ranged from 5 to 17, qualify for the position.

Courts analysis and decision

The respondent numbers five through seventeen have already served for nearly fifteen years, the highest court emphasized. Based on this forecast, the Court declined to intervene in the nomination process. It did, however, have concerns about PIL’s unmaintainability in terms of service issues. The court went on to say that, in light of this Court’s ruling in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others vs. Jintendra Kumar Mishra and Others, (1998) 7 SCC 273, the second reason given by the High Court—that “PIL is not at all maintainable in service matters”—is a contentious matter that should be investigated further in a suitable case.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Hargunn Kaur Makhija

Click here to view your judgement

0

One Can’t Use Article 226 For Fulfilling Hidden Intent In The Name Of Public Interest: High Court Of Delhi

Title: Ms. Sabiha Parveen V  Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.

Citation: W.P.(C) 11646/2023 & Cm Appl. 45465/2023

Coram:  Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Introduction:

Petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as a Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) , In the said PIL the stated reliefs are being asked: 

  • directing the Respondents for immediate removal/sealing of Illegal and unauthorized construction.
  • Directing the Respondents for immediate sealing of structure in the form of unauthorized illegal construction /structure running Hotels at two sites (i.e., properties no. 7 & 8) in Darya Ganj / Old Delhi – Jama Masjid without having necessary permission from government authorities and Fire clearance / NOC from respondent.
  • Directing the Respondent for immediate removal electricity connections installed at Illegal and unauthorized construction

Facts:

Petitioner has no personal interest in the litigation and the petition is not guided by self-gain or for any other person/ institution/ body/ and that there is no motive other than of Public Interest in filling the writ petition.

Respondent, prior to filing of the writ petition on 10.05.2023 had lodged a police complaint against the Petitioner in respect of extortion, threat, etc. and as no action was taken in respect of the complaint lodged, he approached the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor on 23.05.2023.

Court’s Judgement and Analysis:

On the basis of several judgements cited and presented, it is clear that a person who has not come with clean hands is not entitled for any relief and, in the present case, it is clearly visible that the Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.

Nothing prevented the Petitioner from disclosing the relationship with Respondent. The Petitioner who was present in person has admitted the relationship with Respondent in open Court and, therefore, as the Petitioner was certainly an interested person, the Petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to Army Battle Causalities Welfare Fund within 30 days from today.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sushant Kumar Sharma

Click here to view the judgement

0

PIL In Allahabad High Court Against Development Authority Over Land Held For “New Kanpur City”

CASE TITLE:  Prantesh Narayan Bajpeyi v. State Of Up And 4 Others [WPIL No. – 1889 of 2023]

DECIDED ON: 21.08.2023

CORAM: Hon’ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice Hon’ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

INTRODUCTION

On Monday, the Allahabad High Court addressed a public interest litigation concerning the lack of action from the Kanpur Development Authority regarding the land that was acquired through a notification in 1996 for the purpose of establishing the “New Kanpur City” and a residential colony under the development authority.

A total land area of 464.6965 hectares was intended for acquisition from seven villages based on the notification issued on August 9, 1996, for the creation of the “New Kanpur City”. This acquisition was contested by several individuals before the Allahabad High Court, which subsequently invalidated the notifications in 1999.

FACTS

Subsequently, the Supreme Court, in the context of Special Leave Petitions, upheld the validity of the notifications issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. However, it invalidated certain aspects of the Section 6 notifications, directing the need for a fresh evaluation under Section 5A. During the ongoing Special Leave Petition proceedings, multiple requests were made to the Kanpur Development Authority to allocate funds for compensating landowners.

As a result, new declarations under Section 6 of the Act were issued in 2005. The designation of the project changed from “New Kanpur City” to “Residential Colony of Kanpur Development Authority.” These declarations faced legal challenges in the High Court, leading to the annulment of notifications associated with filed petitions. Subsequently, fresh notifications were put forth.

The petitioner presented various records of Authority board meetings to establish that it had been consistently conveyed that the project had lost its effectiveness. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that private individuals had already constructed on their lands and were living peacefully. The Authority’s actions under the guise of the scheme were allegedly infringing upon Article 300A of the Indian Constitution by disturbing the peaceful possession of land.

The petitioner’s counsel asserted that there was a status-quo order in effect during the proceedings in both the High Court and the Apex Court. The scheme initially aimed to acquire land from seven villages for the “New Kanpur City,” but this was purportedly and arbitrarily modified to the “Residential Colony of Kanpur Development Authority.” Allegations are made that the possession of 111.8468 hectares of land, out of the total 464.6965 hectares, was taken unlawfully.

There are concerns about the remaining land, currently in private possession and already built upon, not under the control of the Kanpur Development Authority. Additionally, it was conveyed that the State Government declined the proposal from the Kanpur Development Authority for advancing both the “New Kanpur City” project and the establishment of a residential colony.

While the Kanpur Development Authority acknowledged holding 111.8468 hectares of land, the counsel indicated that due to the scattered nature of the land in their possession, negotiations with the landholders were underway to make the scheme more viable.

CASE ANALYSIS AND DECISION

Ordering the involved parties to uphold the current situation, the bench composed of Chief Justice Pritinker Diwaker and Justice Ashutosh Srivastava remarked,

“In light of the arguments presented by the learned Senior Counsel representing the Petitioner, and recognizing that the Respondent Development Authority possesses only a portion of the land and the feasibility of the proposed ‘New Kanpur City’ scheme is currently uncertain, it is decreed that the parties shall maintain the existing status-quo. However, the Kanpur Development Authority is permitted to engage in negotiations with the tenure holders.”

The case has been scheduled for hearing on October 16, 2023.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Click to view the Judgement.

Written by- Mansi Malpani

 

 

1 2