Niraj Vikas Pabale vs The Tahsildar on 21 September, 2011
(A). One out of them is cognizance taken by Hon'ble The Chief
Justice at Bombay. 2003(4) Mah.L.J. 635 (pl.B) (Surendra Ramchandra
Jichkar vs. State of Maharashtra), considers Chapter IV Clause 2A in
Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, then regulating public
interest litigation Jurisdiction. Petition challenging the location of
Country Liquor Shops in residential locality was entertained as public
interest litigation and said powers exercised by learned Single Judge
are held de hors and inconsistent with the provisions of clause 2A of
Chapter IV of the Rules. It is further said that in view of the above
referred specific provision, petition involving public interest is required
to be heard only by the Division Bench, that too only after obtaining
orders, if the matter is at Bombay from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and
if the matter is before the Benches, from the Senior-most Judge available
at the concerned Benches. The provision is found absolutely
unambiguous and clear and gives jurisdiction to entertain public interest
litigation only to the Division Bench, that too after obtaining necessary
permission as contemplated in clause 2A of Chapter IV of the Rules.