LexJANHIT MANCH & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2017) 8 S.C.R. 428 JANHIT MANCH & ANR. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. (Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 567 of 2017 etc.) JULY31,2017 fA. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.f Transfer Petition: PIL filed before High Court - High Court noticed that issues C raised therein were already pending consideration before Supreme Court - Granted liberty to the petitioner to file transfer petition - Pursuant thereto transfer petition seeking transfer of the PIL to the Supreme Court - SLPs also filed by parties against interim orders passed in the PIL - Held: The issues pending consideration before D Supreme Court has bearing on the PIL - It is in the interest of parties to decide the issues finally - Tramfer petition allowed - SLPs challenging the interim orders dismissed with liberty to seek alteration/variation/modification of the interim orders before this Court. E Allowing the transfer petition and dismissing the SLPs, the Court HELD: 1. The issues which have been raised in the SLP(C) CC Nos.13527-13528 of 2016 filed by the petitioners and SLP(C) Nos.10704-10705 of 2016 filed by respondent No.6 have bearing on the PIL No.17 of 2017 and it is in the interest of all the parties F that such issues be decided finally, when the issues have already been entertained by this Court. [Para 211 [436-DJ 2. This Court is considering only the petition for transfer of PIL No.17 of 2017 as well as the challenge to only interim orders passed by Bombay High Court in PIL No.17 of 2017, the G Court refrains to express any opinion on various aspects relating merits of the case. The observations made by this Court in this order are limited for deciding the transfer petition and SLPs before this Court, such observations may not have any bearing on the issues when they are finally heard and decided. [Para 221 H [436-FJ 428 JANHIT MANCH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 429 3. SLP(C) Nos.10704-10705 ()f 2016 filed against order A dated 27.01.2016 being pending consideration, ends of justice be served in allowing the transfer petition transferring the PIL No.17 of 2017 from Bombay High Court to this Court to be heard alongwith ~LP(C) Nos.10704-10705 of 2016 and SLP(C) CC Nos. 13527~13528 of 2016. The transfer petition is thus allowed, (Para B 24][436-H; 437-A-B] 4. As regards SLP(C) Nos.11749-11750 of 2017, which has been filed against the interim orders dated 24.02.2017 and 11.03.2017 passed by the Bombay High Court, in PIL .No. 17 of 2017, in view of the order passed in Transfer Petidon(C) No.567 . C of 2017, the PIL No.17 of 2017 is being transferredto this Co11rt. :As on the date, there is no good ground to set aside the aforesai.d interim orders, however, PIL No.17 of 2017 having been transferred to be heard by this Court, it is open for the parties to . pray for alteration/modification/variation of the aforesaid interim orders before this Court. The SLP(C)-Nos.11749-11.750 of 2017 D are dismissed subject to above observatio.ns. [Para 25)[437-B- C] CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 567 of2017. Under Article 139Aofthe Constitution of India WITH SLP (C) Nos.11749-11750 of2017. Muk:ul Rohatgi, Kapil Sibal, Chander Uday Singh, Arvind Nayar, E Sr. Advs., Prashant Bhushan, Ranbir Singh, Ms. Garima Prashad, Ms. F Ruby Singh Ahuja, SauravAgarwal, Lalit Kataria, Ms. Deepti Sarin, Sidhanth Gupta, Mis. Karanjawala & Co., Ms. Meera Mathur, Advs. for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASH OK BHUSHAN, J. I. The Transfer Petition and the Special G Leave Petition arising out of similar faGts and events have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. The background - facts giving rise to the transferpetitio!l'as well as Special Leave Petition need to be noted first. · 2: The partles in both the cases being common shall be hereinafter H 430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017] 8 S.C.R. A referred to as described in the transfer petition. J anhit Man ch and another which had filed the PIL at the Bombay High Court are referred to as petitioners whereas, Shri Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd.(SRUIL) is referred to as respondent No.6 and other respondents are referred to as described in transfer petition. B 3. The genesis of dispute is PIL No. 43 of2012 filed by petitioners in the Bombay High Court. In PIL No.43 of 2012, petitioners have questioned the action of respondent No. 3 in respect of concessions granted for develop
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.