The Bombay High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), pending since the last eighteen years, raising the grievances in respect of town planning classification of the area around Worli Seaface Road.

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in 2006, on the situation that existed eighteen years ago.

The Counsel appearing for the respective Respondents pointed out that substantial changes have taken place in the area since the PIL was filed.  

“No affidavit is filed in respect of the present position. No purpose will be served by keeping the PIL pending”, the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Sandeep V. Marne held.

However, the Bench clarified that if the cause survives, it is always open to a bona fide public spirited person/ entity to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court after complying the Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010.

The Bombay High Court directed the Zilla Parishad, Nashik to decide the  representation of the petitioner  challenging the work order issued to the Private Respondent.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice  S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
The work order relates to the water supply scheme for another village. According to the petitioner the said water supply scheme would affect the petitioner’s village.
“How the distribution of water should take place is a job of expert body. We cannot stop the water supply work by exercising our writ jurisdiction without assistance of the experts”, the Bench observed.
The petitioner has already given representation to the respondent no 2/ Zilla Parishad. In case the representation of the petitioner is pending with respondent no.2, then the respondent no.2 may take decision upon the said representation on its own merits and in accordance with the policy expeditiously, preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. All contentions are kept open, the Bench ordered.

The Bombay High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed regarding the  deficiencies existing in non-filling of the posts of teaching and non-teaching staff, non-maintaining the Pavitra Portal for Urdu medium teachers. 
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the basic facilities of the benches are not being provided with. Reliance is placed by the counsel on the various affidavits filed from time to time to contend that there are 55 vacancies of the teaching staff and also non-availability of the basic facilities. 
It is also further submitted that the class-rooms are also not available. In Jadav Wadi School 300 students are being taught in one class-room.
The contention of the counsel for the respondent is that the staff has been filled in every school. As far as Jadav Wadi School is concerned, the school would shift in the new building on 1st June, 2023. It is submitted that the required facilities of benches have been provided to the students. The teaching and non-teaching staff has been filled in as admissible and sanctioned. The class-rooms exist for all the students.   
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice  S.V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that primary education is now held to be a fundamental right of the children aged between 5 to 14 years. As primary education has been brought within the contour of fundamental right, it is the duty of the State and its instrumentalities to provide for the education with all attending facilities and requirements. The Education Officer is the supervisory head. He has to see that all the necessary facilities are provided with. The recruitment is being done as per the roster. The roster will have to be followed.   
One of the grievances is that Pavitra Portal is not being maintained in respect of Urdu medium teachers. The bench noted that if Pavitra Portal is not being maintained for Urdu medium teachers, the same shall be maintained. Immediate action shall be taken in respect of the same and the Pavitra Portal shall be made operational for Urdu medium teachers also within a short time.
“The Education Officer is expected to verify that appointments are being made about teaching and nonteaching staff as per roster and as per the sanctioned posts. The duty is cast upon the Education Officer. If required number of posts are not being filled, then necessary directions shall be issued by the Education Officer to the Municipal   Corporation. The Municipal Corporation shall provide for all the basic facilities, as such benches, class-rooms, adequate teachers and the non-teaching staff. In case there are some vacancies, the Corporation shall take steps to fill the same as per the sanctioned posts”, the Court directed.

The Bombay High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking a direction against the respondents to exercise powers of filing FIR, investigating the number of patients cheated under the guise of medical surgery performed by an autorickshaw driver, an employee of respondent no.1 (Urology Centre) and other consequential relief.

The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice S. V. Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V. Marne asked the advocate for the petitioner as to the specific instances. The said instances could not be pointed out.

The Court further asked the counsel as to whether any complaint has been filed with the police. The answer was again in the negative. Even those persons against whom allegations are made do not appear to the Court to be party in the present criminal PIL.

In case the specific instances are pointed out and the cognizance is not taken, then the petitioner can take steps , held by the Bench.

“We cannot take cognizance on the basis of vague statements. If some untoward incident or incompetent person is found performing any surgery or advancing medical treatment, then the patient can take recourse to criminal law by filing a complaint to the police station,” the Court observed.

In the present case, the Bench noted that no such complaint appears to have been filed. It appears to the Court that there is one complaint filed and the doctor concerned had applied for anticipatory bail. The bail was rejected. In light of that, at this stage, the Court cannot entertain the present criminal PIL.