Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1360 (BOM)

Asmanrao Ramrao Gayke v. State Of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary

2022-05-10

S.G.MEHARE

body2022
JUDGMENT S.G. Mehare, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Govt. Pleader at length. 2] For the same cause of action, earlier a writ petition was filed by one Shaikh anwar Jainuddin, which was converted into PIL No. 14 of 2022, 3] In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the identical order was passed by this Court in W.P. No. 3091 of 2021, the Division Bench of this Court has directed that till next date, further process shall not be undertaken pursuant to the impugned order. accordingly, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 were directed not to take any further process pursuant to the impugned order till the next date. 4] Public Interest Litigation No.14 of 2022 was listed before the Division Bench on 25th april 2022. On that day the court passed an order. Para No.4 of the said order , which reads as under :- '4. The petitioner initially filed writ petition and thereafter converted into PIL. Before this Court could direct the petitioner to deposit certain amount to test bonafides of the petitioner, the petitioner now seeks liberty to withdraw this PIL. In our view, the petitioner has wasted time of this court by filing such PIL. We accordingly dismiss this petition with costs quantified at Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand). It shall be paid by the petitioner to the Maharashtra Legal Services authority within one week from today.' 3] after dismissal of the earlier PIL, again, for the same cause present PIL is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that there is apparent exceeding of jurisdiction by the Honourable Minister while passing the impugned order. The Minister has no such power to pass an order under Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Public interest is involved in the petition. 4] Per contra, learned Government Pleader Shri D.R. Kale by referring to the earlier Government Resolution dated 12.3.2013 would submit that the State has reserved its rights to extend the period of excavation and in view of these powers, the impugned order is passed. He would further submit that it was a decision taken by the Government under the exclusive powers of the Government. He would further submit that it was a decision taken by the Government under the exclusive powers of the Government. He would also submit that once a petition of the same facts is dismissed, there is no reason to entertain similar such petition merely because it is filed by another person. 5] The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the PIL should not have been allowed to be withdrawn. 6] The learned counsel for respondent No.5 would submit that the impugned order is perfectly legal. He has invested huge amount being a successful bidder. 7] This court put a question to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to what research has been done by the petitioner to prove the bonafides and that a issue of public interest is involved. He answered that environmental laws are highly affected. However, he was not able to point out any material to that effect from the record. The vehement arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the Honourable Minister has exceeded his jurisdiction. He pressed into service the Government Resolution dated 30th September, 2021 and further argued that a specific bar to extend the time to excavate is incorporated. There were no exceptional circumstances to extend the period as incorporated in clause 11 of the said Government Resolution. 8] The crucial question, whether a Minister of the State is 'Government' is raised in this petition. 9] This Court has already dismissed the petition in the same facts. Hence, it would not be appropriate to pass any interim orders at this juncture. Hence, issue notice to respondents returnable on 20th June, 2022. 10] Learned Govt. Pleader waives notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Sayeed Tauseef Yassen advocate waives notice for respondent No.5. 11] Respondents to file their affidavit in reply on or before 20th June, 2022. Petitioner would be at liberty to file their rejoinder before 20th June, 2022. 12] Stand over to 22nd June, 2022.