The Bombay High Court has issued a strong reprimand to a petitioner involved in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) case. The petitioner’s plea, initially appearing to address matters of public concern, was found to actually pertain to an individual’s transfer. The court cautioned the petitioner about potential financial consequences.
The PIL was brought forth by Sunil Modi, a former chairman of the standing committee and a member of the Shiv Sena (UBT) faction in the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. The PIL contested the relocation of the city’s chief engineer to the hydraulic department.
Advocate Avinash Gokhale, representing Modi, argued that the transfer was unlawful since it had been carried out by the state government’s Urban Development Department. Gokhale emphasized that only the municipality held the authority for such transfers, with the state having the power to merely grant approval.
However, the bench, consisting of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor, rebuked Gokhale by pointing out, “Isn’t this essentially an employment matter? You’re contesting the reassignment of an individual from one position to another. We might consider imposing costs. We’ve been tolerant in entertaining PILs.”
Gokhale clarified that the petition’s main focus wasn’t solely on the individual’s transfer but rather on the city’s overall situation. He referred to news articles highlighting concerns like uncollected garbage and similar issues.
The PIL requested the court to issue a “writ of Quo Warranto,” compelling the authorities to justify the officer’s transfer. The bench questioned, “What does Quo Warranto entail? Can you challenge an official’s transfer through a PIL? If the PIL had addressed the absence of specific amenities, that could have been considered. However, in this case, an individual has been moved from one department to another. Can a PIL be used to dispute a basic transfer order? How can you argue that this isn’t an employment matter?”
Quo warranto is a legal term that refers to a writ demanding someone to prove their authority to exercise a particular right or power.
Gokhale requested permission to withdraw the plea. Nevertheless, the bench declined, stating that withdrawal wouldn’t be allowed and adding, “You might face costs. We’re deliberating on it.”
However, at the conclusion of the hearing, while advising the lawyer to “study quo warranto,” the bench dismissed the plea without imposing any costs.
