Matter Of Policy Must Be Left To Government; Courts Should Not Interfere Unless Decision Of Executive Infringes A Fundamental Right: Bombay High Court
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom noticed that the choice of the State Authorities relating to organising of the Memorial is one thing which might fall exterior the scope of judicial overview of the Courtroom and that the issues of coverage should be left to the Authorities.
Three PILs have been heard collectively difficult the choice of the State Authorities in organising the Memorial on the website of the Mayor’s Bungalow and the choice to assemble residence for the Mayor on the adjoining plot of land.
The Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne noticed, “As far as the selection made by the State Authorities, with the approval of the landowner (MCGM), to arrange the Memorial at Mayor’s Bungalow is worried, the identical would undoubtedly fall within the realm of coverage, wherein this Courtroom could be detest to intrude. As soon as the Petitioners don’t dispute {that a} memorial to honour late Balasaheb Thackeray deserves to be arrange, the selection of website made by the State Authorities and MCGM for organising of the Memorial is one thing which might fall exterior the scope of judicial overview by this Courtroom… On the subject of organising memorials for leaders and individuals revered for his or her contribution, it’s also effectively settled that such act constitutes a public function and resolution of the chief to arrange a memorial to commemorate such individuals, is a matter of coverage of the State.”
Case Temporary
The PIL, other than difficult the choice to assemble Balasaheb Thackeray Memorial in Mayor’s Bunglow complained that the general public amenity of Gymkhana (Municipal Home) is being compromised for residence of Mayor, which is nothing however a direct consequence of handing over the Mayor’s Bungalow for erecting the Memorial.
It was contended by the Petitioners that they aren’t per-se in opposition to organising of a memorial to commemorate late Balasaheb Thackarey. They don’t dispute the necessity for organising a memorial in Mumbai to acknowledge his contribution and to honour him. They nevertheless dispute number of the positioning at which the Memorial is proposed to be arrange.
Additional, the composition of the Belief ( Balasaheb Thackeray Rashtriya Smarak Samiti) for the upkeep of the memorial was additionally questioned. It was additionally contended that the dear piece of land was being supplied to the Belief nearly freed from value for organising the Memorial.
Whereas the State contended that the institution of the Memorial at Mayor’s bungalow is within the realm of coverage resolution wherein the Courtroom could not intrude. Moreover, it was submitted that that the choice to arrange the Memorial has been taken in curiosity of a bigger part of the society contemplating the contribution of late Balasaheb Thackeray throughout his lifetime. That no exception is made for allotting land for institution of the Memorial as a number of such memorials have been established at numerous websites by allotting land by the State Authorities. That allotment of land for institution of the Memorial for public function at concessional price is part of coverage resolution of the State Authorities and that no departure is made within the current case.
Courtroom’s Evaluation
With regard to the choice of the State Authorities to arrange the Memorial at Mayor’s Bungalow is worried, the Courtroom noticed that the identical would undoubtedly fall within the realm of coverage, wherein the Courtroom wouldn’t intrude. Additional, it was noticed that in terms of organising memorials for leaders and individuals revered for his or her contribution, it’s also effectively settled that such act constitutes a public function and resolution of the chief to arrange a memorial to commemorate such individuals, is a matter of coverage of the State.
Additional, the Excessive Courtroom noticed “Solely three out of the 11 members apparently are members of the Shiv Sena political social gathering and two out of them are literally members of the family of Late Balasaheb Thackeray. Because the Belief is created for organising the Memorial and taking care of it and for the reason that memorial is to honour late Balasaheb Thackeray, we don’t discover any arbitrariness within the resolution of the State Authorities to decide on three members of Shiv Sena political social gathering and two members of household of late Balasaheb Thackeray to be the a part of Board of Governors/Trustees. In any case, late Balasaheb Thackeray based Shiv Sena political social gathering and it will possibly hardly be contended that the choice of the State Authorities in taking up board three members of that social gathering, two out of whom are in truth members of the family of late Balasaheb Thackeray, would quantity to arbitrariness.”
The competition relating to the worth of land was additionally rejected by the Courtroom. The Courtroom opined the Petitioners themselves don’t query the necessity for organising of the Memorial to honour late Balasaheb Thackeray. Additionally they don’t query the truth that such a Memorial must be arrange in Mumbai Metropolis the place late Balasaheb Thackeray not solely resided however had substantial affect. Any piece of land within the metropolis of Mumbai is sure to be useful and subsequently it’s not for this Courtroom to resolve which land must be chosen for organising of the Memorial.
The Courtroom didn’t discover any legitimate floor of problem to the choice of the State Authorities in establishing the Memorial.
Accordingly, the Public Curiosity Litigations have been dismissed.
Trigger Title: Jan Mukti Morcha V. State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-OS:9754-DB)Jan Mukti Morcha V. State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-OS:9754-DB)
Look:
Petitioners: Mr. Sunip Sen, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rujuta Patil and Mr. Yohaan Shah, Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah, for Petitioner in PIL/40/2019.
Dr. Uday Warunjikar, for Petitioner in PIL(L)/81/2017.
Mr. Santosh Daundkar, Petitioner-in-person in PIL/9/2019, current.
Respondents: Mr. Darius J. Khambata, Senior Advocate with Mr. Joel Carlos i/b Mr. Yogesh Patil & Mr. Tushar Hathiramani, for Respondent No. 3 in PIL(L)/51/2017, PIL/40/2019, PIL(L)/81/2017 & for Respondent No. 7 in PIL/9/2019.
Smt. P.H. Kantharia, Govt. Pleader with Mrs. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP for State-Respondent No. 1 in PIL(L)/51/2017, PIL/9/2019.
Smt. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP for State, Respondent No. 1 in PIL(L)/81/2017. Mr. Milind Extra, Addl. GP for State, Respondent No. 1 in PIL/40/2019.
Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Ms. Chaitalee Deochake i/b Ms. Komal R. Punjabi, for MCGM, Respondent No. 2 in PIL/40/2019 & PIL(L)/81/2017 and for Respondent No. 1 & 5 in PIL(L)/51/2017.
Mr. Vishal Kanade i/b Ms. Jaya Bagwe, for MCZMA, Respondent No. 4 in PIL/9/2019.
