Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dr. V. Aditya Srinivas, an office bearer of BSE Brokers' Forum, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Bombay High Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to frame an exhaustive policy for determining the cause under Section 351(2) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction that MCGM should not take measures under Section 351 that would adversely impact the public, and an interim order restraining action under Section 351 until disposal of the petition. The PIL was filed on 14th August 2013. However, prior to this, in July 2013, Respondent No.4 (BSE Limited) had already challenged notices issued under Section 351 of the Act concerning unauthorised extensions/constructions in the BSE premises. That challenge was made in Writ Petition No.2117 of 2013 before a Single Bench of the same court. The Single Bench, after hearing both parties, dismissed the writ petition by a reasoned order dated 16th January 2014, considering all aspects related to the alleged unauthorised constructions. The court noted that the issues raised in the PIL were already covered by the earlier proceedings and that the petitioner, not being the affected party, lacked locus standi. Consequently, the court dismissed the PIL as not maintainable and moot.
Headnote
A) Public Interest Litigation - Locus Standi - Mootness - Petitioner, an office bearer of BSE Brokers' Forum, filed PIL seeking policy for determination of cause under Section 351(2) of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and restraint on action under Section 351 - The court found that the affected party (BSE Limited) had already challenged the same notices in Writ Petition No.2117 of 2013, which was dismissed by a Single Bench on 16th January 2014 - Held that the PIL is not maintainable as the issues are already covered and the petitioner lacks locus standi, and the petition is dismissed as moot (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the PIL seeking framing of policy under Section 351(2) of the MCGM Act and restraining action under Section 351 is maintainable when the affected party (BSE) has already challenged the same notices before a Single Bench.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation as not maintainable and moot, noting that the issues were already covered in the earlier writ petition filed by BSE Limited which was dismissed by a Single Bench.
Law Points
- Public Interest Litigation
- Locus Standi
- Mootness
- Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- 1888
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (03) 139
Public Interest Litigation No.114 of 2013
Anoop V. Mohta, M. S. Sonak
Mr.R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devashish Mitra i/b Legal Assistance for the Petitioner; Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate with Ms Sharmila Modle for Respondent Nos.2 and 3; Mr. Omprakash Oza i/b the Law Point for Respondent No.4
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public Interest Litigation seeking direction to frame policy under Section 351(2) of MCGM Act and restrain action under Section 351.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing MCGM to frame policy for determination of cause under Section 351(2) and to restrain action under Section 351 until disposal of petition.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed that MCGM was taking action under Section 351 without proper policy, affecting public interest.
Previous Decisions
Writ Petition No.2117 of 2013 filed by BSE Limited challenging same notices under Section 351 was dismissed by Single Bench on 16th January 2014.
Issues
Whether the PIL is maintainable when the affected party has already challenged the same notices before a Single Bench.
Whether the petitioner has locus standi to file the PIL.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that MCGM should frame policy under Section 351(2) and not take adverse action.
Respondents contended that the issues are already covered in Writ Petition No.2117 of 2013 filed by BSE Limited.
Ratio Decidendi
A PIL is not maintainable when the affected party has already challenged the same subject matter before a competent court and the issues are already covered. The petitioner lacks locus standi to raise issues that are already pending or decided in proceedings involving the directly affected party.
Judgment Excerpts
This Public Interest Litigation is filed by the Office Bearer of BSE Broker's Forum and Chief Operating Officer and Chief Economist of BSE Broker's Forum.
Respondent No.4 in this Petition, i.e., BSE Limited, prior to that, some in July 2013 itself challenged some notices issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act...
After hearing both the parties, by reasoned order, the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2117 of 2013 dated 16th January 2014, rejected the Petition...
Procedural History
PIL filed on 14th August 2013. Prior to that, in July 2013, BSE Limited challenged notices under Section 351 in Writ Petition No.2117 of 2013, which was dismissed by Single Bench on 16th January 2014. The present PIL was heard and dismissed on 19th March 2014.
Acts & Sections
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: Section 351, Section 351(2)
