The policy decision on salaries of legislators is within the competence of the state legislature, and the court declined to interfere with the enactment.

JUDGMENT :

ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

1. By way of the present Petition filed in the public interest, the Petitioners have sought the following reliefs, viz.

“(a) To direct the Respondent State to lower down the salaries of MLAs to the average level of those of other States’ MLAs salaries i.e. Rs.1,15,000 per month as per the list at Ex. F in para 12.

(b) To direct to reduce the perks provided to MLAs and Ex. MLAs as suggested by the panel of judges to be appointed to consider the suggestions made in the petitioners’ averments in para no.11 and arrived through interviews of some of the MLAs after inviting suggestions and objections from public.

(c) To direct not to provide any salaries and perks to those MLAs whose assets are over Rs.5 crore and paying income tax upto the highest tax rate of 30% or prevailing at the time of the judgment.

(d) The court may suggest to the commission to invite the petitioner for an interview separately to hear his views in the matter.

(e) The Hon’ble Court to appoint yet more Judicial Commission having few high ranking retired IPS Officers to review the threat perception of all the State VIPs including that of the petitioner’s, for whose services the State Police and commandos are appointed to protect them to verify that the threats are real and if so upto what extent or just for appeasement, nepotism and status. The commission’s report to be filed before the court for appropriate order on amendments of The Maharashtra Legislature Members Salaries and Allowance Act, 1956 of last several years amendments till they reach the level of around Rs.1,15,000 per month salary and other allowances.

(f) The Court may direct the Respondent State to quash / repeal all amendments on MLAs’ salary from 2020 downwards upto the level of Rs.1.15 lakh or thereabout and relevant other financial perks and allowances prevailing on the then amendment.

(g) The Hon’ble Court may be asked the Respondent State to appoint through Principal Judge of Local District Court, panel headed by a retired Judge, few eminent citizens and the concerned MLA under his jurisdiction spend Local Area Fund of Rs.3 crore allotted to every MLA.”

2. Mrs. Kantharia, Learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Respondent at the outset raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the issue raised in the present Petition, had already been decided by this Court in an earlier Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the case of Shree Sandeep Pandurang Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., PIL No.148 of 2016 She submitted that thereafter another PIL (PIL No. 164 of 2016 Kakasaheb Damodhar Kakde vs The State of Maharashtra) raising a similar challenge was filed which was also dismissed by this Court. She submitted that copies of both these judgements/orders were annexed to the Affidavit in Reply filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra. She then invited our attention to the order dated 20th January, 2023 passed in the present Petition by which the Petitioners had sought time to go through the said judgments. She pointed out that the Petitioner had thereafter not filed any Rejoinder to the said Affidavit-in-Reply nor dealt with either of the said judgments.

3. When we inquired of Mr. Raiyani i.e., Petitioner No. 2 appearing in person, as to how the present Petition would be maintainable in light of the judgement of this Court in the case of Shree Sandeep Pandurang Patil (supra), instead of answering the query of the Court Mr. Raiyani proceeded to read out the entire Petition. The Court asked Mr. Raiyani to advance legal submissions and not merely read out the Petition. Mr. Raiyani however proceeded to continue to read out the Petition in its entirety. After he completed reading out the Petition, he tendered written submissions which he also read out. We must record here that Mr. Raiyani therefore did not make any legal submissions in support of the aforesaid prayers, nor did he answer the query of the Court as to how the Petition was maintainable in view of