Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay was seized of a batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Maharashtra Government Notification dated 29 August 2019, Notification dated 9 June 2014, and Government Resolutions dated 1 February 2023 and 28 February 2023. The petitioners, comprising non-tribal organizations such as Samajik Vikas Prabhodini, National Centre for Rural Development, Bigar Adivasi Samiti, Adivasi Koli Jamat Samajik Sanstha, and individual non-tribal persons, alleged that these notifications and government resolutions, which pertained to tribal reservation, were arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, and violative of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India. They sought a declaration that the instruments were unconstitutional and prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the State not to make any appointments pursuant to them. The respondent State of Maharashtra filed an affidavit-in-reply dated 9 August 2023, which did not raise any issue of maintainability. However, during the proceedings, the learned Advocate General raised an oral objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions, contending that a statutory remedy was available under the provisions of the Administrative law, thereby ousting the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The Court was in the process of considering this preliminary objection, along with the substantive challenge to the constitutional validity of the notifications and government resolutions. The judgment text provided ends at this point, without recording any final decision, analysis of the merits, or directions. The matters were reserved on 14 September 2023 and pronounced on 27 September 2023 by a Division Bench comprising Sunil B. Shukre and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ. No ratio decidendi or final holding is available from the incomplete text.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Reservation Policy - Articles 14, 15, 16 of Constitution of India - Challenge to Notification dated 9 June 2014 and 29 August 2019 and Government Resolutions dated 1 February 2023 and 28 February 2023 - Petitioners, non-tribal organizations and individuals, sought declaration that the notifications and government resolutions were arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, unconstitutional and violative of fundamental rights under Articles 14 to 16; the High Court was examining the constitutional validity of these instruments along with maintainability of writ petitions. (Paras 1-4) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Statutory Remedy - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Respondent-State raised oral objection that the writ petition was not maintainable due to availability of statutory remedy; the Advocate General contended that statutory remedy under the Administrative law excluded writ jurisdiction; the Court was considering this preliminary objection. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in view of the statutory remedy available under the provisions of the Administrative law; Whether the Notification dated 9 June 2014 and 29 August 2019 and Government Resolutions dated 1 February 2023 and 28 February 2023 are arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India.
Law Points
- Fundamental rights under Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution
- Arbitrariness and unreasonableness in state action
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- Maintainability of writ petition in presence of statutory remedy
- Challenge to notification and government resolutions
