The Bombay High Court recently imposed costs of ₹1 on two petitioners for filing public interest litigation (PIL) petition for redressal of personal grievances [Babarao Sheshrao Pete & Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.]. .A Division Bench of Justices Sunil B Shukre and MW Chandwani observed that the petitioners were personally aggrieved by non-issuance of Scheduled Tribe (ST) certificates to them but filed petitions under the guise of PIL to pursue their personal interest. "Firstly, the petitioners on the pretext of filing a public interest litigation are basically pursuing their own cause, which is evident from the fact that petitioners are personally aggrieved by non-issuance of tribe certificates to them, which is the submission of their learned counsel. Of-course, in the body of petition, no such specific averment is made. But, the real intention behind this petition has now been revealed by learned counsel for the petitioners, which is to achieve a private purpose," the Court said..Advocate Mohnish Thorat, for the petitioners, submitted that because of certain guidelines issued by the State, related to the place of origin of the persons belonging to Mahadev-Koli Schedule Tribe, they were not being issued tribe certificates by the competent authority.He said the guidelines were illegal as they amounted to imposing area restrictions upon people who wish to obtain caste or tribe certificate from the competent authority, when the area restrictions were struck down a long time ago.He also stated that 1986 report of Dajiba Patil Comittee made various recommendations, one of them being of devising an easier and less complicated system of issuance of Schedule Tribe certificate and cancellation of the government publication, Tribes of Maharashtra, 1982, with a direction to not use it as a reference book..Additional Government Pleader Ketki Joshi argued that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioners were pursuing a remedy for a personal grievance on the pretext of a PIL.She also stated that it is for the Government to accept or reject the recommendations of any committee and the petitioners cannot seek a direction to the State for accepting those recommendations.She further stated that after the 1986 Report of Dajiba Patil Committee, following the Supreme Court's judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner Tribal Development, a new law, the Caste Certificate (Issuance and Verification) Laws in Maharashtra, was enacted rendering the Committee's report irrelevant..The Court at the outset recorded that the petitioners were personally aggrieved by non issuance of ST certificates to them, as stated by their counsel."For such a purpose, the petitioners would always be at liberty to take recourse to an appropriate remedy, if advised. But, under no circumstances, the petitioners would be entitled to raise the issue through a public interest litigation, which is really an issue of private nature," the Court explained.Secondly, it observed that the assailed guidelines do not impose any area restrictions for deciding the tribe claims and only deals with the places of origin of the Mahadev Koli tribals.Thirdly, the Court said that the Dajiba Patil Committee Report had lost relevance. It added that even otherwise, it was for the State government to take a decision regarding acceptance or rejection of recommendations of any committee.The petitioners also argued that they had made a representation to the government to air their grievances. But the Court found that the representation relied on by their counsel was only endorsed by them for different persons and not sent by them."This would provide additional reason to us to reject the petition, the reason of the petition having been filed without there being any cause of action insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, there being no rejection of their representation," it stated..On these grounds, the Court found that the petition was not maintainable but was, in fact, an abuse of the process of Court.Hence, it dismissed the PIL with costs of ₹1, which has to be paid within two weeks.If not paid within two weeks, the petitioners will have to pay costs of ₹10,000 within another two weeks failing which the Registrar (Judicial) will cause initiation of appropriate proceedings for recovery of final costs of ₹10,000 by treating them as arrears of revenue, the Court directed..[Read Order]
