Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 561
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dipankar Datta, G.S. Kulkarni, JJ.
Rao Educational Trust - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Interim Application (L) No. 1063 of 2021, 9969 of 2020, 2333 of 2020, 2 of 2021, 508 of 2021, 514 of 2021, 1282 of 2021, 1281 of 2021, 1283 of 2021, 1284 of 2021; Writ Petition (L) No. 2331 of 2019
Decided On : 15-01-2021
J.V. Salunke, Advocate, S.C. Naidu, Advocate, Ramesh Asawa, Advocate, Aniketh Poojari, Advocate, Sudesh Naidu, Advocate, Aditya Hegde, Advocate, A.Y. Sakhare, Advocate, Chirag Shah, Advocate, Rohan Mirpury, Advocate, Raj Adhia, Advocate, Jayesh Patel, Advocate, Geeta Shastri, Advocate, Kiran Gandhi, Advocate, Little And Co, Advocate, Ashish Kamat, Advocate, Vishesh Malviya, Advocate, Kinjal Shah, Advocate, Pooja Vasandani, Advocate, Rashmikant And Partners, Advocate, Birendra Saraf, Advocate, Rahul Soman, Advocate
Approaching the court with clean hands and having the necessary locus standi are essential for the validity of a writ petition.
Headnote:
Locus Standi - Maharashtra Self-Financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012 - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS REFERENCED: The court discussed the petitioner's locus standi to invoke the writ jurisdiction and the relevance of the Maharashtra Self-Financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012. The court also highlighted the importance of clean hands when approaching the court and the dismissal of the writ petition due to lack of disclosure and lack of locus standi.]
Fact of the Case:
The court examined the petitioner's locus standi and the validity of the writ petition, which was based on the Maharashtra Self-Financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012. The court found that the petitioner did not disclose her association with another education society and dismissed the writ petition due to lack of disclosure and lack of locus standi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not approach the court with clean hands and dismissed the writ petition due to lack of disclosure and lack of locus standi.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's locus standi, the validity of the writ petition, and the relevance of the Maharashtra Self-Financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and having the necessary locus standi. The dismissal of the writ petition was based on the lack of disclosure and lack of locus standi.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and discharged the Rule, with no order as to costs. All pending applications were disposed of without any order, and any interim order was vacated forthwith.
JUDGMENT
1. Interim Application (L) No.1063 of 2021 is on Board today. The prayers therein read as follows:-
"a) That the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 29th December, 2020 and continued vide further orders dated 31st December, 2020 and continued with modification vide order dated 4th January, 2021 be recalled and vacated.
b) In the alternate the order dated 4th January 2021 be varied, modified or revised and Respondent Board be directed to forthwith allot and communicate the Provisional Index and Code numbers to each of the five Colleges of the Applicant and to act upon the said Index Number and Code Number for accepting the forms of students studying in Std. XII of the said five colleges;
c) That in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction direct the Respondent Board to communicate index & code number to each college of the applicant and thereafter accept examination forms with prescribed fees of all eligible students for appearing in A.Y. 2020-21 HSC Board Exams or in the alternate accept all examination forms of all eligible students studying in the five colleges of the Applicants for A.Y. 2020-21 alongwith prescribed examination fee through any other recognized colleges;
d) The Respondent Board be directed to allot Seat Number, Identity Card, Hall Ticket, etc. to facilitate students studying in Std. XII (5 colleges of Applicant) to appear and give HSC Board Exam A.Y. 2020-21."
2. Appearing in support of the application, Mr.Naidu, learned advocate for the applicant (the respondent no.5 in the writ petition) has challenged the locus standi of the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction. In addition, he has also submitted that the writ petition stood rejected for noncompliance with office directions for removal of objections; yet, the petitioner obtained orders in such disposed of writ petition by filing interim applications. It has also been submitted by him that the writ petition is a "cut, copy and paste" of Public Interest Litigation (L) No.69 of 2018, which stood dismissed by reason of an order dated 16th October 2019 owing to the PIL petitioner not removing the objections.
3. Having heard Mr.Naidu, we had called upon Mr.Sakhare, learned senior counsel for the petitioner to satisfy us that she had/has the necessary locus standi to present this writ petition.
4. Mr.Sakhare, by referring to the pleadings, has sought to contend that the petitioner in fact has the locus standi and therefore, being satisfied, a coordinate Bench of this Court issued Rule on 14th October 2019; not only that, other coordinate Benches also found merit in the cause espoused by the petitioner resulting in an order dated 28th January 2020 being passed, whereby the State Government was restrained from granting approvals/permissions in respect of opening of junior colleges in violation of the relevant law, i.e., the Maharashtra Self-Financed Schools (Establishment and Regulation) Act, 2012 (hereafter "the Act", for short). Not only that, the Government had made an application in the pending writ petition seeking permission to consider applications that were pending having regard to introduction of appropriate rules framed under the Act and an order on such application was passed on 2nd November 2020 granting liberty to the State Government to consider such applications in accordance with the rules.
5. Based thereon, it is the submission of Mr.Sakhare that the writ petition is maintainable and as such, ought to be taken to its logical conclusion not on the basis of any technical objection that might have been raised by Mr.Naidu or on the ground that the petitioner lacks the locus standi to present it, but strictly on the merits of the cause touching immense public interest; if necessary, by converting the writ petition into a 'Public Interest Litigation'.
6. The main prayers in the writ petition read as follows:
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, orde
