9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Nayak a/w Mr. Gauri Helekar i/b Rithvik Joshi. For the Intervenor : Mr. Subhash Jha i/b Law Global. For the Intervenor : Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay a/w Mr. Vijay Jha a/w Mr Anikt Upadhyay i/b Law Juris. For the Intervenor : Dr. Jaishri Patil a/w Mr Rajaashok Ghate. For the Intervenor : Mr. Prathamesh Gaikwad a/w Mr. Aniruddh Yadav a/w Mr. Ganesh Nagargoje a/w Mr. Vishal Khetre a/w Mr. Nitin Hajare. For the Intervenor : Mr. Praful A. Patil a/w Mr. Rohit Patil. For the Intervenor in Person : Dr. Gunratan Sadavarte. ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 1. The petitioners claim to be law students of colleges in Maharashtra and Gujarat. The challenge raised by the petitioners under the garb of this Public Interest Litigation, primarily is to the notification dated 19 January 2024 issued by the Government of Maharashtra declaring 22 January 2024 as a public holiday on the occasion of the celebrations of the "Shri Ram-Lalla Pran-Pratishtha Din". The impugned notification is issued by the State Government under Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and in exercise of the powers entrusted to it by the Central Government under the notification by the Governmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Vs. Potta Sanyasi Rao (1975)2 SCC 480. 5. On the other hand Dr. Saraf, learned Advocate General opposing the petition, at the outset would submit, that the case of the petitioners to challenge the impugned notification issued by the State Government in the manner as sought to be made out in the petition, needs to be outrightly rejected, for the reason that the Central Government notification dated 8 May 1968 itself is not on record, as also there are no pleadings as to how the power conferred on the State Government is illegal. Dr. Saraf would submit that for such reason any inquiry on such prayer is completely beyond the scope of the petition. It is also his submission that such notification issued by the Central Government is in operation for almost 55 years and since then it has been resorted to by the State Government, to issue notifications under Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted that thus, the challenge of the petitioners to the impugned notification dated 19 January 2024 itself is not in a manner, the law would recognize. According to Dr. Saraf, the petition needs to fail on this count alone. 6. Dr. Saraf would next submit that in any e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Saraf would submit that the petition does not warrant any consideration whatsoever and it ought to be dismissed in limine. 8. Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Additional Solicitor General has supported the submissions made by Dr. Saraf. He submits that this petition is far from a bonafide Public Interest Litigation. Hence it needs to be dismissed. 9. We have also heard the interveners. The interveners were represented by Mr. R. S. Apte, Mr. S. M. Gorwardkar, learned Senior Advocates, and by learned Advocates Mr. Subhash Jha, Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay, Dr. Jaishri Patil, Mr. Prathamesh Gaikwad, Mr. Praful Patil and Dr. Sadavarte. 10. The common contention as urged on behalf of the Intervenors is also to the effect that the petition is an abuse of the process of law and is not maintainable. It is submitted that this PIL is a frivolous, vexatious, malicious petition, and in fact a publicity oriented petition. It is submitted that with such intention it is engineered to be filed at the last minute and moved before the Court on a holiday. It is submitted that no fundamental rights or any legal rights of the petitioners, in any manner are affected nor this is a case of any public right being aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 29 August 2023 rejected a petition seeking holiday for Karwa Chauth contending that festival of 'Karwa Chauth' is largely celebrated by women and that there was a gender discrimination in the matter of declaration of holiday on the festivals. The Court observed that declaration of holidays falls in the realm of policy matters of the State. It was observed that the Courts cannot entertain such disputes unless guided by statute and even otherwise the festivals are commonly celebrated by all. 13. The Division Bench of this Court in Kishnabhai Nathubhai Ghutia & Anr. Vs. The Hon'ble Administrator Union Territory & Ors. Writ Petition no. 9602/21 dt. 5/1/2022 considering the prayer of the petitioners that a writ be issued, declaring that the notification impugned therein declaring public holidays for the year 2022 as bad and illegal, to the limited extent of not declaring a public holiday on 2 August 2022 being the Liberation / Independence Day of Dadra & Nagar Haveli, dismissed the petition, inter alia observing that whether or not to declare a particular day as a public holiday or an optional holiday or no holiday at all, is a matter of Government policy. It was observed th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd if such arguments as canvassed by the petitioners were to be accepted, then the Government cannot declare any public holiday for Janmashtami, Ramzan or Christmas. It was observed that ours is a State where different people follow different religions and faith. The State does not impose any particular religion or faith on any people. If the State allows its citizens to discharge their religious functions, it cannot be said to be against the secular interest of the State. The Court also observed that India is the second most populous country of the world. The people inhabiting this vast land profess different religions and speak different languages. Despite the diversity of religion and language, there runs through the fabric of the nation a golden thread of a basic innate unity. It is a mosaic of different religious, languages and cultures. Each of them has made a mark on the Indian polity and India today represents a synthesis of them all. With such observations the petition was dismissed by the Court. We find ourselves in complete agreement with the observations of the Kerala High Court in recognizing such clear tenets of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. 17. A consisten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndi and without appreciating that the Public Interest Litigation is a weapon required to be used with great care and circumspect. The Supreme Court time and again has held that the Courts are required to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest, an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity-seeking is not lurking. 20. Applying such principles, in our opinion, the petitioners appear to be completely unmindful of such elementary requirements when the canvass of their petition is likely to have wider ramifications. Thus such petition could not have been moved making unwarranted and untenable statements and raising contentions in such a casual manner, this more particularly despite we pointing out to the petitioners as to whether they would be serious on their contentions in the petition. On such suggestion as made by the Court a bonafide litigant at the outset would make deletion of any insinuations which are either untenable, irrelevant and contrary to law which ought not to remain on record. 21. We therefore find much substance in the contention as urged by Dr. Saraf as also vehemently supported by all the interveners that the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... profession and was almost a black spot on the noble profession. The Court taking a review of the well settled principle of law referring to several decisions observed that although the public interest litigation has now come to occupy an important field in the administration of law, it should not be 'publicity interest litigation' or 'private interest litigation' or 'politics interest litigation' or the latest trend 'paise income litigation'. The Supreme Court observed that the Courts of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants by resorting to the extraordinary jurisdiction. Referring to the decision in Janata Dal Vs. H. S. Chowdhary (1992)4 SCC 305 and Kazi Lhendup Dorji Vs. CBI 1994 Supp (2) SCC 116 the Court observed that a writ petitioner who comes to the Court for relief in public interest must come to the Court not only with clean hands like any other writ petitioner but also with a clean heart, clean mind and clean objective. Highlighting the entire concept of Public Interest Litigation, the Court highlighted the effect of abuse of process of law and the solemn duty of the Court to be discharged. It was observed that busybodies, meddlesome ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
