IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. OKA, A.A. SAYED, JJ.
Mumbai Grahak Panchayat and Another - Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others - Respondents
Public Interest Litigation No. 156 of 2011 Along With Civil Application Nos. 155 & 157 of 2015; Along With Contempt Petition St. No. 21807 of 2016 In Public Interest Litigation No. 156 of 2011; Writ Petition No. 175, 8352 of 2016; 2547, 2544 of 2015 Alongwith Civil Application No. 1133 of 2016; Civil Application No. 2703 of 2016; Public Interest Litigation No. 133 of 2012; 52 of 2015; 31 of 2014; 14 of 2012; 216 of 2010; Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Public Interest Litigation No. 61 of 2012; Suo Moto Public Interest Litigation No. 7 of 2011; ordinary original civil jurisdiction writ petition no. 1543 of 2016; Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction Public Interest Litigation No. 59 of 2013 Alongwith Chamber Summons No. 311 of 2015; Chamber Summons St. No. 339 of 2016 In Writ Petition No. 2331 of 1990; Public Interest Litigation No. 81 of 2012 (Transferred from Nagpur Bench PIL No. 35 of 2010)
Decided On : 05-05-2017
Result – Petitions disposed of.
A.S. Oka, J.
OVERVIEW
1. Though submissions were fully heard on 26th October 2016, the Petitions were fixed for rehearing on 31st January 2017 and 31st March 2017 to enable the parties to make submissions on the basis of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmed.
2. This group of Public Interest Litigations/Writ Petitions concerns the issues of infrastructure of Civil and Criminal Courts in the State, Consumer Fora at State level and District level under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the said Act of 1986”), the Cooperative Courts and the Cooperative Appellate Courts established under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the said Act of 1960”) and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Mumbai established under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “M.V. Act”). The judiciary is considered to be a vital pillar of democracy. The common man has a lot of hopes and expectations from the Courts and Tribunals. Therefore, almost all Courts and Tribunals in the State of Maharashtra suffer from over flow of dockets. Almost all the Courts and Tribunals in the State lack proper infrastructure.
3. As on 4th May 2017, going by the figures available on National Judicial Data Grid, in Civil and Criminal Courts, Cooperative Courts and Cooperative Appellate Courts, Labour Courts and Industrial Courts as well as Family Courts in the State, total 32,39,623 cases were pending. Out of which, 21,30,614 were criminal cases. 15.32% cases were more than five years' old cases. Total 33,711 cases were pending as of 4th May 2017 in the Family Courts in the State. On that date, total 9590 case were pending in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Mumbai. We are reproducing these figures only to show the importance of the issue of lack of availability of adequate number of Judges and lack of proper infrastructure to the Courts and Tribunals in the State. There are 407 Court Complexes in the State of traditional Civil and Criminal Courts out of which 72 are in the properties taken on rent.
LEGAL POSITION
4. Before we go into the factual details, the legal position will have to be restated so that the facts can be considered in light of the legal position. Part IV of the Constitution of India contains the Directive Principles of the State Policy. The Article 39A incorporated in Part IV of the Constitution of India reads thus:-
“39A. Equal justice and free legal aid. The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.”
5. The obligation of the State to the Judiciary will have to be considered in the light of the aforesaid directive principle of the State Policy. The issue of obligation of the State Government to provide infrastructure to the Judiciary came up for consideration in the case of Purshottam Manohar Kamone V. State of Maharashtra, 2001(4) Mh.L.J. 320. The Paragraph 6 of the said decision reads thus:-
“6. It is no longer debatable and rather it is well settled that the speedy justice is an ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, each litigant has a fundamental right of a speedy justice. That being so, it is the corresponding obligation of the State to constitute sufficient number of Courts, Tribunals and forums so that a litigant, who has knocked the door of the Court or Tribunal, is able to get justice speedy. Taking into consideration the huge pendency of motor accident claim cases at Nagpur, expected future filing and slow disposal of such cases, it is necessary for the State Government to provide sufficient Motor Accident Claims Tribunals at Nagpur. This is essential to
Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and Others
Chandrashekar A.K. v. State of Kerala and Another
HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society v. Heavy Engg. Corpn. Ltd.
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty
Pralhad Bhaurao Ghule & Ors. v. Government of Maharashtra & Ors.
Purshottam Manohar Kamone V. State of Maharashtra
Sanjeev M. Gorwardkar & another v. State of Maharashtra & others
State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh
State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh
State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia
State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn.
State of Punjab and another v. Surjit Singh and others
State of Maharashtra v. Labour Law Practioners’ Association
S.C. Advocates-on-Record v. Union of India
Union of India v. Dineshan K.K.
Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.