The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for caution and circumspection in pursuing Public Interest Litigations, and the court's authority to dismiss petitions as a patent abuse of process of law.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. The petitioners claim to be law students of colleges in Maharashtra and Gujarat. The challenge raised by the petitioners under the garb of this Public Interest Litigation, primarily is to the notification dated 19 January 2024 issued by the Government of Maharashtra declaring 22 January 2024 as a public holiday on the occasion of the celebrations of the “Shri Ram-Lalla Pran-Pratishtha Din”. The impugned notification is issued by the State Government under Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and in exercise of the powers entrusted to it by the Central Government under the notification by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs dated 8 May 1968.

2. At the outset, we may observe that although the notification dated 8 May 1968 issued by the Government of India, is challenged in prayer clause (a), however, the same is not placed on record, nor are there any averments in the memo of the petition specifically assailing the said notification, in regard to the powers which the notification would confer on the State Government.

3. The petitioner No.1 has argued the petition. From the tenor of her arguments, she appears to be quite convinced in regard to the case, as sought to be made out by the petitioners in the memo of the petition, in assailing the notification declaring 22 January 2024 to be a public holiday. The petitioners in support of the prayers as made in the petition have made the following submissions:-

4. The impugned notification is arbitrary and is not only against public interest but also against the economic interest of the country. It is submitted that the decision to declare 22 January 2024 as a holiday is also an arbitrary decision, hit by the Wednesbury principles of reasonableness. It is also against the public policy for the reason that it is contrary to the secular principles which the Constitution would enshrine which the Government needs to adhere. It is next submitted that the impugned notification is ultra vires the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not confer power on the State Government to issue such notification. In such context, it is submitted that Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not confer any unfettered powers or discretion on the State Government to issue such notification. On such count the notification is not only illegal when tested on the provisions of Section 25, but is also violative of the principles of secularism being violative of Articles, 14, 21, 25, 26 and 27 of the Constitution of India. It is hence her submission that the impugned notification needs to be quashed and set aside as also at the interim stage of the proceedings the Court needs to stay the notification. In support of her submission, petitioner No.1 has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Harshit Agarwal Vs. Union of India, (2021)2 SCC 710; A.K.Roy Vs. State of Punjab, (1986) 4 SCC 326, S. R. Bommai Vs. Union of India, (1994)3 SCC 1 and State of A.P. Vs. Potta Sanyasi Rao, (1975)2 SCC 480.

5. On the other hand Dr. Saraf, learned Advocate General opposing the petition, at the outset would submit, that the case of the petitioners to challenge the impugned notification issued by the State Government in the manner as sought to be made out in the petition, needs to be outrightly rejected, for the reason that the Central Government notification dated 8 May 1968 itself is not on record, as also there are no pleadings as to how the power conferred on the State Government is illegal. Dr. Saraf would submit that for such reason any inquiry on such prayer is completely beyond the scope of the petition. It is also his submission that such notification issued by the Central Government is in operation for almost 55 years and since then it has been resorted to by the State Government, to issue notifications under Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted that thus, the challenge