NANASAHEB VASANTRAO JADHAV v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
Maintainability of PILs: High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking CBI Inquiry Due to Prior Litigation, Delay, and Lack of Public Cause; Reiterates Principles for PILs and CBI Investigations.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:57123-DB
Decision Date: 22-12-2025
List of Laws
Criminal Public Interest Litigation; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 2005; Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966; The Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Facts: The petitioner filed a Criminal Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to authorities for registration of a criminal case and investigation by the CBI against certain individuals, alleging illegal permissions granted for the Lavasa Hill Station Project. The petitioner had previously filed multiple PILs (PIL-I, PIL-II, PIL-III) concerning the same subject matter, including challenges to amendments made in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 2005 (BTAL Act) and allegations of misconduct by high government functionaries. PIL-III was dismissed due to delay.
- Procedural Posture: This is a judgment on a Criminal Public Interest Litigation before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
- Issue: Is the present Criminal PIL maintainable, considering the petitioner's previous PILs on the same subject matter, the delay in approaching the court, and the nature of the allegations made? Can the High Court direct a CBI investigation based on the facts presented?
- Holding: The Criminal Public Interest Litigation No. 5 of 2023 is dismissed as not maintainable.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the petitioner had previously filed multiple PILs on the same issue, and PIL-III was dismissed due to delay. The Court noted that the petitioner had the opportunity to seek a CBI investigation in the earlier PIL but did not. The Court emphasized that directing a CBI investigation is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional circumstances to protect public confidence in the justice system. The Court also observed that the allegations of misconduct in the allocation of land and amendments to the BTAL Act and Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLR Code) had already been addressed in the dismissed PIL-III. The Court held that the present PIL did not espouse a public cause and that allowing the petition would amount to a roving inquiry. The court reiterated that PILs should aim at redressing genuine public harm and not be driven by personal gain or oblique motives, citing "Balwant Singh Chaufal". The High Court should be circumspect and ensure the petition is for a larger public cause.
🔒 For Members Only