Bombay High Court

RAKESH MANILAL SHELKEversusUNION OF INDIA THR. DEFENCE DEPT. AND ORS

Decided: 22 June 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: M S KARNIK S M MODAK

Holding

The Court disposed of the writ petition, declining to entertain it on its merits.

Summary

The petitioner filed a public‑interest litigation claiming ownership of a property and alleging that construction by Respondent No.6 was contrary to national interest because it proceeded without defence authority permission. An earlier suit filed in 2022 sought an interim injunction, which the trial court rejected in February 2023. The petitioner then moved this writ petition in May 2023, attaching an affidavit from Union of India supporting the claim. The High Court observed that the petition appeared to be driven by the petitioner’s personal interest masquerading as public interest and expressed no inclination to entertain it, though it left open the petitioner’s right to file a genuine PIL. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any substantive adjudication on the parties’ contentions.

Issues considered

The petitioner's claim that the construction by Respondent No.6 violates national interest due to lack of defence authority permission.
Whether the writ petition, presented as a public‑interest litigation, should be entertained by the Court.

Subjects

public interest litigation
property ownership
interim injunction
national interest
defence authority permission

Judgment

LSP                                  1               72 wp 4217.24.doc


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    Writ Petition No. 4217 of 2024

Mr. Rakesh Manilal Shelke                   …     Petitioner
     V/s.
Union of India and others                   …     Respondents.


Mr. Surya Shelke a/w. Pallabi Chatterjee h/f. Hemant Ghadigaonkar
for the petitioner.

Mr. Kedar B. Dighe for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - UOI.
Mr. Anand Kulkarni for respondent No.4.
Mr. Girish S. Godbole a/w. Kaustubh Thipsay and Advocate Shivrat
Pathe for respondent No.6.
Ms. Minal Chandani (through v.c.) for respondent No.5.
Mr. A.K. Naik, AGP for the State.

                            CORAM : M.S. KARNIK &
                                    S.M. MODAK, JJ.

                              DATE : 22nd June 2026.

P.C. :

1.    The present petition is filed in the nature of PIL. The petitioner
has filed a suit claiming to be a owner of the property. Suit was filed
in the year 2022. The interim injunction prayed for by the petitioner
was rejected on 28th February 2023 by the trial Court. Thereafter, in
the month of May 2023, present petition is filed saying that the
construction made by the respondent No.6 is completely against
national interest as the same is done without obtaining prior
LSP                                   2                72 wp 4217.24.doc


permission of the defence authorities.

2.    There is an affidavit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2
supporting the petitioner’s case. However, it is always open for the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 to initiate appropriate action if the
permission granted by the Corporation is not in accordance with the
provisions of law.

3.    Hard copy of the affidavit-in-reply is tendered by the Union of
India. The same is taken on record.

4.    The present petition as filed prima facie appears to be
espousing the personal interest of the petitioner which is in the garb
of public interest. In any case we are not inclined to entertain the
present petition at the behest of the present petitioner. However,
liberty of the petitioner to file a public interest litigation is kept open.

5.    Writ Petition is disposed of.

6.    It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on any
of the contentions of either parties. All contentions are kept open.



     (S.M.MODAK,J.)                              (M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…