The importance of well-founded and well-supported public interest petitions, and the burden of frivolous or poorly presented petitions on the judicial system.

JUDGMENT :

ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

1. The present Petition has been filed in the public interest and seeks the following reliefs;

(a) To direct Respondent No.1 University, State Legal Services Authorities Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.4 Bar Council of India to empanel a team of their senior officers to visit all Law Colleges under the jurisdiction of the Mumbai University and on close verification of the functioning of the legal aid clinics in every college prepare a detailed report as avered in this PIL for submission before the Hon’ble Court for appropriate adjudication and final verdict.

(b) To direct Respondent No.2, State’s Dept. of education to prepare a budgetary layout for funding law colleges through grant-in-aid scheme and further to grant appropriate annual amount for colleges to run legal aid clinics as effectively as laid down in the statutes and as ordered by the Supreme Court as referred hereinabove.

(c) To direct Respondent No.1 University to give an undertaking to prepare annual report for filing before the court for next 3 years from every college, Under Rule 42, Schedule VIII in hard and soft copies to satisfy on its proper survey and monitoring the working of the legal aid clinics and thereafter every year annually to the remaining three Respondents and if any of them suggest any changes or modifications in implementation of the scheme, shall be implied accordingly.

(d) To direct University authorities to hold seminars, workshops and training camps for proper management for ultimum benefit of the beneficiaries to reflect in the annual report.

(e) To direct Respondent No.3 through District Legal Services Authorities with the assistance of panel advocates to train para legal volunteers of each college.

(f) To direct State Legal Aid Authority, to prepare its own annual report based on the monthly reports of District Legal Aid Authorities through Law Colleges and Universities and conducting periodical reviews of working of Legal Aid Clinics as stipulated in the National Legal Services Authority.

(g) To direct Respondent No.3, Legal Services Authority to appropriately hike the rates of advocates fees and other out of pocket expenses as framed in the SCHEME TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES TO THE MIDDLE INCOME CITIZEN, stipulated by National Legal Service Authority in 2011.

(h) To direct to Respondent No.2, the minister concerned for the Dept. of Education, disciplinary action against Mr. Suhas Pednekar and Prof. Ravindra Kulkarni, the V.C., and the Pro. V.C. respectively of the Respondent No.1 University on dereliction of duty as written by the petitioners to the State Governor on 13-12-2019 quoting the Law Under The Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005.”

2. At the outset, Ms. Gonsalvez, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3 i.e., State Legal Services Authority invited our attention to the order dated 20th January, 2023, passed in this Petition by a coordinate Bench of this Court (S. V. Gangapurwala, ACJ and Sandeep V. Marne, J.), which reads thus;

“P.C. :-

1. No details are given in the petition of the alleged violations. The petition is omnibus. At the request of the party in person, stand over to 27 March 2023.”

3. We then inquired of Mr. Raiyani, as to how in light of the above observations (a) the Petition would be entertainable and (b) whether he was desirous of amending the Petition, on which Mr. Raiyani submitted that he would not be amending the Petition and submitted that the same was maintainable as filed. When asked how such a vague and omnibus Petition was maintainable, Mr. Rayani instead of answering the query of the Court, proceeded to read out the entire Petition. After he read out the entire Petition, Mr. Rayani then tendered written submissions which he also proceeded to read out.

4. Mr. Raiyani then placed reliance upon a judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Manubhai Praga