TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not have been moved making unwarranted and untenable statements and raising contentions in such a casual manner, this more particularly despite on pointing out to the petitioners as to whether they would be serious on their contentions in the petition. There are no manner of doubt that the present proceeding is a patent abuse of process of law. The proceedings cannot be kept pending and are required to be dismissed in limine with exemplary cost. - G. S. KULKARNI Dr. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. For the Petitioners : Ms. Shivangi Agarwal, NLU Mumbai, Mr. Satyajeet Salve, GLC, Mumbai, Mr. Vedant Agrawal, Nirma University, Ms. Khushi Bangra, NLU, Mumbai, Petitioners in Person present. For the Respondent No. 1/ Union of India : Mr. Devang Vyas, Additional Solicitor General a/w Mr. D.P. Singh a/w Mr. Pratik Irpatgire a/w Mr. Sheelang Shah a/w Mr. Jenish Jain. For the State : Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General a/w Mr. P.P. Kakade, Government Pleader a/w Mr O.A. Chandurkar Additional Government Pleader a/w Mr. Jay Sanklecha. For the Intervenor : Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sudhanva S. Bedekar a/w Mr. Akash Kotecha a/w Mr. Shahank Dubey a/w Mr. Amey Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest but also against the economic interest of the country. It is submitted that the decision to declare 22 January 2024 as a holiday is also an arbitrary decision, hit by the Wednesbury principles of reasonableness. It is also against the public policy for the reason that it is contrary to the secular principles which the Constitution would enshrine which the Government needs to adhere. It is next submitted that the impugned notification is ultra vires the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not confer power on the State Government to issue such notification. In such context, it is submitted that Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not confer any unfettered powers or discretion on the State Government to issue such notification. On such count the notification is not only illegal when tested on the provisions of Section 25, but is also violative of the principles of secularism being violative of Articles, 14, 21, 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution of India. It is hence her submission that the impugned notification needs to be quashed and set aside as also at the interim stage of the proceedings the Court needs to sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded by the petitioners in light of the secular principles, such notification as issued by the State Government cannot be said to be arbitrary, and in fact it promotes the principles of secularism. Thus, according to Dr. Saraf, the case of the petitioners that the notification is in any manner arbitrary or against public policy or against the constitutional provisions, is not well founded. 7. Apart from the above submissions, Dr. Saraf has some serious submissions on the tenor of the petition when he submits that the petition clearly has political overtones. This he submitted, drawing our attention to the averments / statements as made in paragraphs 18, 20, 21, 30, 32, 33 and 38 of the petition. It is his submission that apart from this, the petitioners are casual and quite reckless, in regard to the other contentions as raised in the petition, when in paragraph 43 the petitioners state that this is a fit case for the President to invoke powers under Article 356 of the Constitution of India. He submits that on a cumulative consideration of such statements made in the petition, it is clear that the present PIL is far from bonafide and more so the petition is motivated to cause a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xt submitted that the petitioners do not have any grievance in regard to the notification issued by the Central Government, thus it is surprising that this petition is filed only against the notification issued by the State Government. It is their submission that this is clearly a politically motivated petition sought to be moved overnight, and is an abuse of the process of law. It is submitted that such practices, more particularly by law students abusing the process of law, ought to be deprecated. The learned intervenors would thus submit that the petition be dismissed. 11. As submitted by Dr. Saraf whenever such issues have reached the Courts in assailing, either declaration of holidays or for prayer that a particular day be declared as holiday, a consistent view has been taken by the Supreme Court and by various High Courts that a decision to declare or not to declare a holiday falls within the realm of the executive policy. Our attention was drawn to the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the case of K. K. Ranesh Vs. Union of India Ors. Writ Petition(Civil)No. 806 of 2022 dt. 14/11/22022 wherein the petitioner had approached the Supreme Court with a prayer that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the said festival, knowing fully well that such decisions as to which days should be a holiday or not, are within the executive domain of the Government. 15. We may also refer to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case Srimad Paramahamsa Parivrajakacharya Jagadguru Shankaracharya Revenka Peethadhishwara vs. State of A.P. and ors. 2000 SCC OnLine AP 205 in which the Court clearly observed that the Government always has the power to decide about the holidays on account of religious festivals. This case was in the context of the Government deciding to declare a holiday on account of the decision taken by the Priests of Bhadrachalam temple. The Court observed that the decision cannot be faulted. 16. The Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Parent-Teachers Association, Govt. Lower Primary School Vs. Chalil Kunhimmu Haji Ors. AIR 1997 Ker 97 was examining the issue as to whether the concession granted by the State of Kerala to avail of the Ramzan holidays by the schools where Muslim students were in the majority and allowing them to work during the midsummer holidays would calculate to sabotage secularism affecting the secular nature of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , when the notification of the Central Government dated 8 May 1968 on its purport although assailed is not part of the petition. We may also observe that merely including a prayer in the petition, without establishing the basic framework and laying the foundation to support the prayer, in fact amounts to a defective petition being pursued, incapable of adjudication, that too when filed as a Public Interest Litigation. 18. We are also not inclined to accept the contention as urged on behalf of the petitioners referring to the decisions as cited by the petitioners. The principles of law as laid down in these decisions are well settled. The principles of judicial review in considering the legality of the decisions when tested on arbitrariness and procedural impropriety are well settled. Thus, referring to these decisions we are not satisfied that the petitioners have made out any case to suggest that the State Government has not acted in accordance with law while issuing the impugned notification. This, more particularly, when we find that the State Government has exercised power as entrusted to it under notification dated 8 May 1968 of the Central Government. 19. This apart, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Supreme Court, as described in paragraph 21 of the petition, to be startling and more particularly, with a further overtone of a motive being attributed to the decision of the Supreme Court, such approach of the petitioners can be said to be far from being bonafide. In fact, no prudent litigant would make such statement which is against the basic tenets of what Article 141 of the Constitution would mandate. 22. This apart, there are other serious allegations made in the petition. It is difficult for us to believe that these law students would inculcate imagination at such stage of their life and even before entering this noble profession, make such serious statements which are against the Constitutional ethos. Considering such statements as made by the petitioners in the paragraphs as pointed out to us by Dr. Saraf, we have no manner of doubt that this petition is utterly motivated and is filed on extraneous considerations. As rightly contended on behalf of the respondents, the petition is patently frivolous which is undeserving of any attention of the Court, considering the settled principles of law as laid down in catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, on the Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. In conclusion the Court observed that it was a disturbing feature which needs immediate remedial measure by the Bar Councils and the Bar Associations to see that the process of law is not abused and polluted by its members. 24. In our opinion, these settled principles of law and such decision of the Supreme Court ought to have been considered by the petitioners and with all solemnity, more particularly, when the petitioners claim to be the students of law and who may have an intention to enter this noble profession. 25. The petitioners are myopic in their approach on several paramount considerations in pursuing this PIL perhaps being blindfolded by the object with which they intended to pursue this petition. As a Constitutional Court and that too while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, we cannot be unmindful and overlook the lack of such basic bonafides the litigant needs to wield, on a case being made out, on such pleadings and which was being argued with impunity. We intend to caution the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
