Bombay HC dismisses PIL by ‘non-aggrieved’ lawyer against GR for Kunbi status to Marathas

A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam A Ankhad was hearing PIL by lawyer Vinit Vinod Dhotre argued through advocate Rajesh P Khobragade which alleged that the impugned GR “arbitrarily extended OBC status to a politically dominant and socially advanced community without sufficient data” and same was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The PIL further alleged that the GR “discriminates against genuine OBC communities by diluting their share of reservation

The court said that PIL was “thoroughly misconceived” and “it was open for the aggrieved persons” to challenge the GR but not the petitioner lawyer, who was not directly affected by the same.

Senior advocates Anil Anturkar and Venkatesh Dhond representing other petitioners challenging the GR and Advocate General Birendra Saraf representing state government submitted that organisations belonging to Other Backward Classes (OBCs) have already approached the HC challenging the GR, therefore present PIL by Dhotre was not maintainable

The petitioner claimed that a large section of society belonging to different caste categories will be affected by the GR, therefore he sought to espouse the cause of such persons in public interest.

“Without going into merits of the GR of September 2, we would observe that the HC is required to discourage filing of PIL in the matters where individuals who feel affected by government decision have approached the court/forum.

In our opinion, this is really in the public interest that there should not be multiplicity of litigations in the sense that multiple applications one after the other are filed by different individuals in the name of public interest,” the HC noted.

The court noted that “wishful thinking of a person or mere showing of some arguable issue are not the considerations on which PIL can be based.”

The court, therefore, said it was “not inclined” to entertain the PIL and dismissed the same. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner Dhotre to file an intervention application in pending petitions and said the application can be heard and decided on its own merits.

Meanwhile, writ petitions filed by Maharashtra Mali Samaj, Sadanand Bapu Mandlik of Samata Parishad and Ahir Suvarnakar Samaj, a PIL filed by Shiva Akhil Bhartiya Veershaiva Yuvak Sanghatana challenging the September 2 GR are pending before the HC. A division bench led by Justice Revati Mohite-Dere is likely to take up writ pleas next week.