JUDGMENT :

Mushroom growth of PILs has now become a problem to the Courts. It often comes to our mind as to whether a PIL has really continued to be a litigation in the interest of the public or whether it has become a publicity interest litigation or a personal interest litigation.

2. On 18.01.2023, when this Court considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the appearing sides, the following order was passed:

1. An affidavit in reply has been filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5/APMC dated 23.08.2022.

2. The learned advocate for the petitioner specifically submits that no rejoinder is necessary and the petitioner does not desire to file any rejoinder.

3. Insofar as the locus of the petitioner is concerned, the only description is that he is a farmer within the jurisdiction of the APMC.

4. Shri Thombre, the learned advocate for the APMC, raises a serious grievance as regards the maintainability of this PIL. The complaints filed by the petitioner earlier were considered at different levels including before the Honourable Minister for State. The complaints were also filed before the District Deputy Registrar. Under the orders of the District Deputy Registrar, an enquiry committee was constituted, which submitted a detailed report to the District Deputy Registrar dated 28.03.2022. Vide the said report, the committee found that the complaints filed by the petitioner were false and there was nothing objectionable in the affairs of the APMC.

5. Shri Thombre further submits that yet again there were complaints filed by different complainants. Two enquiry officers were appointed by the District Deputy Registrar in the form of the Assistant Registrars, Cooperative Societies, Mantha and Partur. The enquiry letters were issued to them. The APMC approached this Court in preferring Writ Petition No.5774/2022 and vide the order dated 13.06.2022, it was directed in paragraph 4 as under :-

"a) The petitioners shall tender detailed written explanation to their respondent No.3 authority in response to the impugned notice dated 23-05-2022, on or before 30-06-2022.

b) Thereafter, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 shall consider the grounds put forth by the petitioners including the contention that they are likely to be punished twice for the same purported misconduct/misdemean or and pass a reasoned order on or before 21-07-2022. Copies of the order shall be kept ready to be delivered to the petitioners and the parties concerned, by 03.00 pm on 21-07-2022.

c) In the event respondent Nos. 4 and 5 decide to conduct fresh enquiry under the rules, they shall ensure that they would refrain from causing an enquiry with regard to those allegations against the petitioners which have already been dealt with by the earlier report dated 28-03-2022, in which these petitioners have been exonerated.

d) In the event an enquiry is conducted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on the issues which were not earlier dealt with in the earlier enquiry, they are at liberty to draw an inference on the material available and supply a copy of the report to the petitioners expeditiously.

e) The petition stands disposed off accordingly."

6. It is, therefore, the grievance of the APMC that despite the above exercise, which has been repeated on two occasions, this PIL has been filed. Shri Thombre, therefore, submits that the petitioner's bonafides should be tested by directing him to deposit at least Rs. 10 lacs.

7. Shri Dighe, the learned advocate for respondent No.7, submits that the entire procedure as is required in auctioning of plots was