AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anoop V. Mohta, J.—This Public Interest Litigation is filed by the Office Bearer of BSE Broker''s Forum and Chief Operating Officer and Chief Economist of BSE Broker''s Forum.
This Petition filed on 14th August 2013 with following prayers:
a) That this Hon''ble Court may please to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other Writ, Order of Direction, directing the Respondent No. 2 frame exhaustive policy to determine what are the criteria for carrying out determination of cause u/s 351(2) of MCGM Act 1888.
b) That this Hon''ble Court may please to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondent No. 2 not to take such measures on the notice served u/s 351 of MCGM Act 1888 which may have adverse impact on the public.
c) That this Hon''ble Court may please to issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing not to take any action u/s 351 of the Act till the disposal of the Petition.
d) Interim and ad-interim orders in terms of prayer (c) above.
e) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem proper and expedient in the public interest.
Respondent No. 4 in this Petition, i.e., BSE Limited, prior to that, some in July 2013 itself challenged some notices issued u/s 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (for short ''said Act'') for the BSE premises dealing with the same issues, i.e., unauthorised extension/constructions in the BSE premises.
After hearing both the parties, by reasoned order, the Hon''ble Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2117 of 2013 dated 16th January 2014, rejected the Petition, by considering all aspects involving around and connected to the alleged unauthorised constructions and relevant aspects revolving around the said notices. Respondent No. 4, therefore, had challenged the order. On 28th February 2014, the Supreme Court also dismissed the Special Leave Petition. Therefore, the impugned notices and the reasoned order has attained the finality. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4 and the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-Corporation accepted the position that even the Supreme Court has not granted any relief whatsoever regarding the structures and the action revolving around it.
The statement is also made by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 that they have asked time/extension to renew and/or vacate the alleged illegal structures. However, the Hon''ble Supreme Court only permitted them to apply for the same to the Corporation.
In view of above undisputed position on record and the above facts, itself sufficient not to entertain the present alleged public interest litigation filed by the Petitioner. The individual rights, even if any, of the notice based upon Section 351 of the said Act, which have taken care by Respondent No. 4, themselves and agitated the issue even, by challenging the action of the Respondent-Corporation, prior to filing of the present Petition but that has attained the finality as recorded above. The present Petition is now listed and/or circulated in spite of above order passed by this Court, this is an additional factor to dismiss the present Petition as no case whatsoever made out to consider the case of the Petitioner again for the same reliefs, as public interest litigation. There cannot be public interest litigation to protect the alleged illegal/unauthorised construction, specially when for the same, the Petition already dismissed and has attained finality.
The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner''s submission that the Respondent-Corporation should at least consider the respective noticees'' entitlement and/or right to apply for regularization, also cannot be accepted in view of the orders of this Court and the Supreme Court as recorded above. In any way that also cannot be the reason even to entertain this Petition. This Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.