Justice Sunil B Shukre and Justice MW Chandwani at the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court have dismissed a PIL terming the petition as an abuse of the process of the court and imposed a cost of Rs 1.
The petitioners had challenged the Government Resolution and the guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra relating to the place of origin of Mahadev-Koli, Scheduled Tribe persons. The petitioners had submitted that they were not being issued tribe certificate by the competent authority. It was argued that the directions were illegal as the area restrictions were tantamount to imposing area restrictions on persons seeking to obtain caste/tribe certificates from the competent authority even after the area restrictions had been removed long ago.
The petitioners further stated that Dajiba Parbat Patil, Committee, who was the Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Council in the year 1986, had submitted a report. One of the various recommendations was devising an easier and less complicated system for issuing ST certificates. and cancellation of the Government publication, Tribes of Maharashtra, 1982 with instructions not to use it as a reference book.
The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the petitioners were making a personal complaint in the guise of a PIL. He submitted that it is for the Government to accept or reject the recommendations of any committee and the petitioners cannot seek any mandamus for the State to accept those recommendations. He argued that after the Caste Certificate (Issue and Verification) Act was enacted in Maharashtra in 2000, the Dajiba Patil committee report lost its relevance.
The High Court agreed with the submissions of the Additional Public Prosecutor and observed, “The petitioners are basically pursuing their own cause in the pretext of filing a PIL, which is evident from the fact that the petitioners are personally Tribe certificate to them, which is the submission of their learned counsel.
The Court also noted that the counsel for the petitioners disclosed the real intention behind this petition, which is to achieve a personal objective. The petitioner could have resorted to appropriate remedy but in any event the petitioner was not entitled to raise this issue through public interest litigation, which is essentially a matter of private nature.
The court noted that it is for the State Government to decide whether to accept or partially accept or reject or partially reject the recommendations of any committee and the petitioners have not placed any material on record to show that Please be informed that the report has been categorically rejected. State government.
Describing the petition as an abuse of the process of the court, the bench said, “On the aforesaid grounds, we find that this petition is not maintainable and in fact amounts to abuse of the process of the court and therefore it is necessary that the petition be dismissed.” with some cost.
The court dismissed the petition imposing a cost of Re 1 and said, “The petition is dismissed with costs of Re 1, which shall be paid by the petitioners within two weeks from the date of the order; failing which the petitioners shall be liable to pay a cost of Rs.10,000/-. [Rs.Ten Thousand only] within the next two weeks and failing which the Registrar (Judicial) shall initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of final cost of Rs. 10,000/- treating them as arrears of revenue.
read all latest india news Here