The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a real and genuine cause of action and the definition of 'aggrieved person' in the context of challenging the validity of statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

Avinash G. Gharote, J. - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By the present petition, the amendments, to the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, in its application to the State of Maharashtra by the Governor of Maharashtra, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 5 of the Vth Schedule of the Constitution of India as published in the Gazette by notifications dated 23/02/2017, 18/05/2020, Corrigendum dated 2/6/2020, 23/09/2020 and the Government Resolution dated 28/9/2020 are under challenge.

3. The challenge is at the behest of the petitioner, who is an Advocate by profession. Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, learned Advocate General has raised a preliminary objection regarding the locus of the petitioner, to raise such a challenge. He contends that the petitioner, does not have any cause of action to challenge the validity of the amendments to the Act of 2006. The petition does not disclose any cause of action, no averments are there as to what right of the petitioner has been affected and reliance is placed on Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India and another, (2004) 6 SCC 254. He further submits that the Court always decides an issue on a cause and does not decide any issue academically or in the air. Reliance is placed upon Jotun India Private Limited Vs. Union of India and Ors., 2018 SCC Online Bom 6400 and United Forum and others Vs. The Union of India and others, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2221 to contend that there should be a real and genuine challenge arising out of the facts and circumstances of the case and no jurisdictional or issue of constitutional validity should be considered in abstract, unless the aggrieved party or its cause is otherwise represented, which is absent in the present matter. Relying upon State of Bihar Vs. Rai Bahadur Hurdut Roy Mod Lal Jute Mills and another, AIR 1960 SC 378, he submits that if the facts admitted or proved do not attract the impugned provisions then there is no occasion to decide the issue about the vires of the provisions and insuch a case any decision on the said question would be purely academic and Courts should be reluctant to decide constitutional points merely as matters of academic importance. Further relying upon State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kartar Singh, AIR 1964 SC 1135 he submits that in case the validity of the rule is to be challenged, foundational facts necessary to sustain such a plea, ought to be first laid out which is absent.

4. Learned Advocate General further contends that the present matter not being a public interest litigation but a writ petition filed by the petitioner, the requirement to disclose a cause of action, is mandatory. He further submits that the petitioner does not fall within the expression "aggrieved person" and neither does he have any direct grievance, for which reliance is placed upon Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2013) 4 SCC 465. Further contentions are that there is no executable prayer; the petition merely seeking a declaration is not maintainable. He further submits that only para 54 in the petition, remotely suggests of any cause of action, which does not satisfy the requirement of law of any cause in the petitioner. The petition therefore according to him is not maintainable and is required to be dismissed on that count alone.

5. Mr. C.S. Kaptan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invites our attention to the amendment to the Act of 2006. He submits that the notification dated 18/5/2020, in the matter of inserting Section 6-A, had provided the right of appeal to "any person" which by the subsequent corrigendum notification dated 2/6/2020 has been substituted by the expression "any claimant". He therefore contends that the right of appeal, as available to "any person" has been reduced to "claimants", which amounts to taking away a pre-existing right, which in fact gives rise to a cause of actio