Don't Register Writ Petition That Doesn't Set Out Specific Grounds – Bombay High Court To Registry

A division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice NB Suryawanshi, sitting in the Aurangabad Bench, directed, "The Registry shall ensure that, in future, no Writ Petition is registered unless specific grounds are set out therein upon which the writ petition is moved for grant of relief, as claimed by the petitioner. Any lapse in this regard will be viewed strictly."

The bench came across the petition during a hearing earlier this week. The court, after going through the petition, noticed that it did not contain a separate paragraph containing grounds based on which the relief was being sought by the petitioner. The bench then observed that this was mandatory as per Rule 1 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960.

The Rule, which talks about applications for issue of writs, directions, etc. under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, states — Every application for the issue of a direction, order or writ under Article 226 of the Constitution shall, if, the matter in dispute is or has arisen substantially outside Greater Bombay, be heard and disposed of by a Division Bench to be appointed by the Chief Justice. The application shall set out therein the relief sought and the grounds on which it is sought. It shall be solemnly affirmed or supported by an affidavit. In every such application, the applicant shall state whether he has made any other application to the Supreme Court or the High Court in respect of the same matter and how that application has been disposed of.

The petition in this case was filed by one Ambhika Magasvargiya Mastyavaivasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jununwadi, seeking reliefs under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, invoking the Maharashtra Co-Operative Society Act 1960. The petition originating from Parbhani district of Maharashtra, was filed in July 2019, was heard on a few occasions by different division benches. Notices were issued to the respondents as well.

However, on February 14, Advocate for the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action. The bench allowed the withdrawal and liberty as asked for, but noticed the shortcoming in the petition and therefore issued the direction.

Case Title: Ambhika Magasvargiya Mastyavaivasaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Jununwadi vs State of Maharashtra

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 41