1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 18 OF 2005
1) Venkatesh Pradyumnacharya Varakhedakar )
Occ. Upadyay R/o Datta Ghat, Pandharpur )
Since deceased by his heirs and legal )
representatives )
1-a) Bheemacharya (Bheemasen) Vyankatesh )
(Balacharya) Varakhedakar, Aged about 52 yrs )
Occupation - Upadhyay and Trustee of Vaidic )
Dharma Samrakshak Sangha, residing at
H. No. 2300, Datta Ghat, Po
)
)
Pandharpur 413304, District - Solapur )
In the capacity of individual as well as )
representative of all such persons who are in )
favour of the subject matter and the relief )
claimed in the Suit. ). PETITIONER
Versus
1) Maharashtra State )
Notice to be served on The Collector, )
Solapur District At & Po. Solapur. )
2) Ramanatha Zha, Aged about 60 years )
Occupation - Service, Prant Office )
Pandharpur 413304, Dist. Solapur )
In the capacity of (i) individual (now C/o Chief)
Secretary to the Govt. of Maharashtra State )
Secretariat, Fort, Mumbai) as well as )
ii) Deputy Collector, Pandharpur Sub-Division )
Pandhapur. )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:26:48 :::
2
iii) Executive Officer, Temple Committee )
Pandharpur (which is merged in The Vitthal )
Rukminhee Temple Committee, Pandharpur )
in 1985) and
(iv) Adminstrator to the Pandharpur )
Municipality, Pandharpur(Now The Chief )
Officer, Pandharpur Municipality,Pandharpur) )
3) Narayan Dattatray Badave, Occ.: Badavepana )
Residing at Badave Galli, Pandharpur-413304 )
District - Solapur. )
4) Manohar Vitthal Badave, Occ.: Badavepana )
Residing at Badave Galli, Pandharpur-413304 )
District - Solapur.ig
Respondent No.3 and 4 are self-joined
)
)
Defendants in the Suit on behalf of themselves )
and all Badaves. Since both are deceased, )
notice to be served on their representative )
Badave a Member of the Vitthal Rukminhee )
Temple Committee, Pandharpur )
5) Govind Devaba Nimbalakar, Aged about 68 yrs )
Occupation - Business and agriculture )
Residing at Near Sahasra Vishnu Mandir )
Teen Raste, At & Po. Shegaum-Dumala )
Taluka Pandharpur, Dist. Solapur )
(Self joined Plaintiff & Appellant No.2 )
But at present not interested in continuing )
the litigation) )..
RESPONDENTS
Mr Bheemacharya Vyankatesh Varakhedakar - Petitioner,
present in person.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:26:48 :::
3
Mr V.S. Masurkar, Government Pleader, for the State.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 19TH MARCH 2009
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 23RD MARCH 2009
JUDGMENT (PER SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J.)
This Public Interest Litigation has been brought by Mr
Bheemacharya Vyankatesh Varakhedakar, legal heir of late Mr
Venkatesh Pradyumnacharya Varakhedakar, the Petitioner, with the
prayer the records and proceedings of the cases referred in the
Petition be called for and Review Petition Stamp No. 28623 of 2004 in
Second Appeal No. 521 of 1983 be withdrawn from the Court of Mr.
Justice A.S. Oka and be placed for decision in accordance with law
before any other Bench.
2. The Petitioner had filed a Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.
562 of 1980 with a prayer that he is member of Sanatan Vaidic Hindu
religion, Vaishnhav Bhagavat society and has a right to perform the
puja and also to demand dakshina by performing the religious
ceremonies in the Vitthal Rukminhee temple. He also claims that he
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:26:48 :::
4
possessess the right of management in view of Articles 25, 26 and 29
of the Constitution of India and according to him his fundamental
rights were being infringed. The Suit was based with reference to the
provisions of the Pandharpur Temple Act, 1973 and, therefore, the
Suit for declaration was filed. Reference to other facts including the
properties of the temple was also made and the leave for injunction
was also claimed against the Defendants in the Suit. This Suit came
to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court. First Appeal was also
dismissed by the learned District Court. Second Appeal preferred by
the Petitioner was admitted vide order dated 11th October 1983 on the
question framed therein. This Appeal was finally heard by the learned
Single Judge and came to be dismissed on 26th July 2004.
Thereafter, the present Petitioner filed a Review Petition being
Review Petition No. 11 of 2005 seeking review of the order of
dismissal of the Second Appeal by the learned Single Judge. This
Review Petition, as per record, was fixed from time to time for
admission and there the Petitioner raised the contention that Review
Petition should be heard by another Court. Taking note of this, the
learned Single Judge had placed the matter before the Chief Justice,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:26:48 :::
5
wherein it was directed that the Review Petition may be heard by the
said Court as per the High Court Appellate Side Rules. Thereafter,
the Review Petition was again adjourned. The Petitioner submitted
his written submissions and the Review Petition also came to be
dismissed vide order dated 24th October 2008. A Division Bench of
this Court vide order dated 23rd February 2005 passed in the present
Public Interest Litigation directed that the Review Petition be listed
before the same Judge which passed the order. After passing of the
order dated 24th October 2008 dismissing the Review Petition, the
Petitioner has filed the present application for listing the Public
Interest Litigation and for transfer of the Review Petition from the
Bench of the learned Single Judge.
3. We find that such a request would not be maintainable
though in the facts of the present case the Review Petition has also
been dismissed and the Petitioner is entitled to take recourse to legal
remedies available to him in accordance with law. Filing of Public
Interest Litigation in fact is an abuse of the process of the Court and
cannot be entertained by the Court. We expect the Petitioner to act in
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:26:48 :::
6
a circumscribed manner and not to keep on filing frivolous Petitions.
The Supreme Court in the case of Janta Dal vs H.S. Chaudhary,
(1992) 4 SCC 305, had stated that the jurisdiction of public interest
litigation can hardly be invoked for personal gain and/or private profit
and/or oblique consideration and it is intended not to encourage
vexatious litigation.
4.
Public Interest Litigation and the present application for
transfer thus both are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own
costs. The Petitioner is at liberty to take such action as is permissible
to him in accordance with law.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD J.
uday/judgment/pil18-05
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:26:48 :::