A summary of important cases from the causelist of the Bombay High Court..LIST OF CASES.Bombay High Court.Public Concern for Governance Trust v. Union of India & 4 Ors.Federation of Adoption Agencies v. Central Adoption Resource Authority.Manav Vikas Prakalp & 2 Ors v. State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors.Manoranjan Santosh Roy v. Aamir Khan & 9 OrsBombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India & 3 Ors.Advertising Agencies Association of India & 9 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra.1. Public Concern for Governance Trust v. Union of India & 4 Ors..[Item 901 Court 52- PILST(OS)/154/2015].Bench: VM Kanade, MS Sonak JJ..A PIL seeking a stay on Mumbai Metro One fare hike. The Mumbai Metro One Private Ltd.(MMOPL) had moved to the apex court challenging the interim stay in fare hike ordered by the High Court. The apex court refused to intervene, the interim relief has continued till now..Senior counsel Aspi Chinoy appears for MMRDA and Senior counsel Prasad Dhakephalkar appears for MMOPL..Today in court: Justice Kanade was on leave..2. Mr. Santosh Digambar Honkarape & Anr v. Central Adoption Resources Agency & Ors.[Item 16 Court 13- PIL(C)/162/2015].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ.The petitioners had challenged the 2015 guidelines on adoption issued by Central Adoption Resources Agency (CARA). They had alleged that the new procedure established by the guidelines, of viewing the children online, is unfavourable to these children..The intervenors (parents who support the new guidelines) had stated that these guidelines are more transparent. Recording the facts in an order by the apex court dated 14 March 2016, Oka J said since certain procedures in the new guidelines were in direct conflict with the Juvenile Justice Act 2015. .Since then, the central government has come out with new model rules for adoption under the Juvenile Justice Act. The state was directed to frame regulations in consonance with these model rules. Today a compliance report is expected to be filed..Today in court: ASG Anil Singh appeared for the state and submitted that 10-12 months are needed to frame regulations at the state level for adoption. Oka J said there has to be a deadline since the apex court had given the centre three months to frame model rules which they complied with..CARA has now been given two more weeks to take down the photographs of children on their website since it is in violation of Sec 74 of the JJ Act..3. Manav Vikas Prakalp & 2 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & 4 Ors..[Item 23 Court 13- PIL(OS)/22/2012].Bench: AS Oka, AA Sayed JJ..This PIL was filed after 27 padas in Aarey milk colony were issued eviction notices by the encroachment authority, Government of Maharashtra. The NGT had earlier declared Aarey milk colony an eco-sensitive zone..The Tribal Research Training Institute in Pune had been directed to submit a report ascertaining the current situation regarding these padas for cultivation and water supply..Today in court: AGP Geeta Shastri informed the court that State Reserve Police (SRPF) and Film City have refused to give an NOC to the BMC for laying down pipelines for supplying water to tribal padas in the Aarey Milk Colony area..Force One, the elite commando force has its headquarters in Goregaon near to the Aarey Milk Colony. It has refused to give clearence to BMC for building a suction tank which is crucial in supplying water to two padas in particular. The state had been asked to reconsider this decision, the same issue was reiterated today. Oka J observed that if NOC is not given then it will be practically impossible for the civic body to supply water. The matter will now be heard on July 31..4. Manoranjan Santosh Roy v. Aamir Khan & 9 Ors. .[Item 29 Court 13- PIL(OS)/49/2015].Bench: A.S. Oka, AA Sayed JJ.A PIL against the use of words “Satyamev Jayate” from the national emblem for a TV show. Actor Aamir Khan and his wife Kiran Rao are two of the 9 respondents..Pradeep Pandey, Under Secretary in Ministry of Home Affairs had informed the court that only the words satyamev jayate were used in the show and not the emblem itself hence it is not in any violation of the law..Sanjay Kadam, appearing for Star TV, said that these words owe their origin to the Upanishads and have been widely used in popular culture hence the PIL is frivolous. The arguements will continue today..Today in court: This PIL was dismissed. Oka J observed in his order.“Sec 3 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act 1950 clearly talks of improper use of the national emblem which is not the case here. Also, Satyamev Jayate is not specifically a part of the definition of Emblem under Sec 2(a) of the said act, it is the moto. We find that there are no violations by any of the respondents of the said act or the schedules therein. Hence there is no merit in this petition.”.5. Bombay Lawyers Association v. Union of India & 3 Ors. .[Item 39 Court 13- PIL(OS)/52/2015].Bench: AS Oka, PD Naik JJ.A PIL seeking 30 per cent reservation for women in the Bar Council of India as well as other bar associations at the state level. Oka J had previously questioned the maintainability of the PIL..Today in court: The petitioners sought two weeks for making representations in the matter. Although Oka J granted time, he said “we are not inclined to entertain the main prayer in the petition.”.6. Advertising Agencies Association of India & 9 Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr..[Item 912 Court 31- WP(OS)/2006/2008].Bench: SC Dharmadhikari, Shalini Phansalkar joshi JJ.The petitioners claim exemption from paying duty levied by the state on advertisements in newspapers, television or radio. The High Court had granted an interim stay on collection of levy. Senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas appears for the petitioners..Today in court: This matter could not be taken up due to paucity of time..7. Adivasi Samaj Kruti Samiti & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra.[Item 3 Court 21- PIL(C)/71/2014].Bench: SS Kemkar, MS Karnik JJ.The PIL raises issues regarding functioning of caste scrutiny committees appointed by the state under provisions of Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukt Jatis), Nomedic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regular Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act 2000. .A committee appointed to look into this purpose headed by retired Justice RY Ganoo had submitted its report recommending more scrutiny committees. The State is yet to implement these recommendations..Today in court: After the State GP submitted that appointments of personnel for new monitoring committees are still being made, petitioner’s lawyer Uday Warunjikar stated that these directions for appointing personnel etc were given one and a half years back..State sought four weeks time to file a compliance report which was granted. Although the matter will be listed through CMIS, MS Karnik J clarified that if the report is not satisfactory the matter will be listed immediately.