Bombay High Court

UMESH BAJIRAO KHANDEKARversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS.

Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MADHAV JAMDAR

Holding

The petition is not maintainable as a public interest litigation because it concerns a private contractual dispute, and is therefore dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, a 32‑year‑old typist and self‑described social worker, filed a public interest litigation seeking a direction to the State of Maharashtra to act against persons occupying Galas without authorization and allegedly in arrears of rent, relying on information obtained under the Right to Information Act. The State, represented by the Advocate General, contended that the matter was already being addressed by the Ichalkaranji Municipal Council under the Public Premises Act and questioned the maintainability of the PIL. The Court examined the petition and concluded that the dispute pertained to a private contractual relationship between the occupiers and the owner, not a matter of public interest. It held that the petitioner was attempting to intervene in a private rent‑arrest dispute, thereby misusing the PIL mechanism. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that no public interest was involved.

Issues considered

Whether the petition constitutes a maintainable public interest litigation
Whether the unauthorized occupation of Galas and alleged rent arrears raise a matter of public interest

Legislation cited

Public Premises Act
Right to Information Act

Subjects

public interest litigation
maintainability
unauthorized occupation
rent arrears
private dispute
misuse of PIL
municipal council
public premises act

Judgment

                                                                                  3--25-2018-PIL=.doc



                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 25 OF 2018
          Digitally
          signed by
UDAY
          UDAY
          SHIVAJI
                       Umesh Bajirao Khandekar                                 … Petitioner
SHIVAJI   JAGTAP
JAGTAP    Date:
          2026.04.24
                                           Versus
          20:06:41
          +0530        State of Maharashtra Through Its Principal              … Respondents
                       Secretary and Ors.

                                                   ………….
                       Mr. D.V. Sutar a/w Shruti P. Ghodake, S.M. Patil, Reshma J.
                       Adnaik, Advocates for the Petitioner.
                       Mr. Vinod Sangvikar, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
                       Dr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General a/w Mrs. Neha Bhide,
                       Government Pleader a/w Mr. Vikas M. Mali, Additional
                       Government Pleader, for the Respondent-State
                                                   ………….

                                              CORAM :      SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &
                                                           MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

                                              DATE    :    23rd APRIL, 2026.
                       P. C. :

                                Trying to enter into the realm of a private dispute, the
                       petitioner aged about 32 years and claiming that he is a Typist,
                       seeks       a    direction   upon   the   respondent-Authority   to    take
                       appropriate steps against the persons who are in unauthorized
                       possession of Galas.
                       2.       Mr. Sutar, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that
                       the petitioner is a social worker and he obtained information
                       through Right to Information Act as to arrears of rent payable by
                       the persons who are occupying Galas.
                       3.       Mr. Sathe, the learned Advocate General appears for


                       Uday S. Jagtap                       1 of 2
                                                         3--25-2018-PIL=.doc



respondent-State and raises a question of maintainability of this
Public Interest Litigation. The learned Advocate General submits
that necessary steps have been taken by 5th respondent-Chief
Officer, Ichalkaranji Municipal Council and proceedings under
the Public Premises Act have been initiated.

4.       Having gone through the records of this writ petition
labelled as a public interest litigation, we find that there is no
public interest involved in this matter. The issue regarding
unauthorised occupation or arrears of rent, shall be governed by
the agreement executed between the parties. Quite apparently,
the petitioner has endeavored to enter into the contractual
dispute between the parties.

5.       The concept of public interest litigation which originated in
the guiding thought to ensure that the voice of the voiceless is
heard in a Court of law seems to have been misused by the
petitions like the present one.

6.       Public Interest Litigation No. 25 of 2018 is dismissed.




 [ MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]                       [ CHIEF JUSTICE ]




Uday S. Jagtap                    2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…