:1: :1: :1: srp. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1951 OF 2009. WRIT PETITION NO. 1951 OF 2009. WRIT PETITION NO. 1951 OF 2009. Shri. Harmitsingh Saini & Another. ..Petitioners. Versus. The State of Maharashtra & others. ..Respondents. --- Mr. M. S. Karnik for the petitioner. Mrs. Jyoti Pawar, Additional Govrnment Pleader for respondent nos. 1 & 4. Mr. A. S. Rao for respondent nos. 2 & 5. Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar along with Mr. M. S. Kamthekar for respondent no.3. CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & CORAM: S. B. MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE: February 18, 2009. DATE: February 18, 2009. DATE: February 18, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner is in transport business and claims to be an active social worker. Petitioner no.2 is also a businessman and social worker. Earlier petitioner no.2 had filed a Public Interest Litigation in respect of the very same post, namely, the post of Assistant Director of Town Planning to be appointed in the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation. That public interest litigation was not entertained and dismissed by :2: :2: :2: this Court as not maintainable as Public Interest Litigation. However, while declining to interfere in that Petition, the State was directed to look into the facts averred in the Writ Petition and act in accordance with law. 3. What is important to be noted is that for a post to be filled in, namely, the post of the Assistant Director of Town Planning with which the petitioner is no way concerned with and is not entitled to be appointed on the said post. How and in what manner the said appointments are to be made is a matter to be considered by the Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and also by the State Government. Still this Court while dismissing the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation has observed that the State should look into it, and we find that the State has sufficiently redressed the grievance of the petitioner. Inspite of that the petitioner has filed this petition, and one more petition filed by the present petitioners on the same subject matter making grievance of the subsequent developments is pending in this Court. 4. In fact on going through the record we find that after the order was passed in the Public Interest Litigation, the Government has passed the order that the charge should be given to Mr. Kawale and since the charge was not received by Kawale the, State Government :3: :3: :3: has issued further directions in this respect. As per the directions given in the Public Interest Litigation the State is looking into the matter. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has no room to make grievance against the respondents more specifically against respondent no.3 against whom several allegations have been made by the petitioner. However it appears that the petitioners are trying to settle the personal score against respondent no.3 and, therefore, repeatedly they are coming to this Court by filing the petitions for similar reliefs. 5. Now an attempt is made before this Court to submit that even though the petitioner has no locus standi in the matter, he is coming to the Court as informant of the Court to point out the illegality committed by the respondent. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 1 in the 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 1 in the 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 1 in the matter of Raju Ramsingh Vasave v/s. Mahesh Deorao matter of Raju Ramsingh Vasave v/s. Mahesh Deorao matter of Raju Ramsingh Vasave v/s. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar and others. Bhivapurkar and others. Bhivapurkar and others. We have gone through that judgment especially paragraph 31 thereof. No doubt the Apex Court has taken cognizance of such writ petitions not as Public Interest Litigation but as Public Law Litigation. However, this aspect appears to have been considered by this Court when earlier the Public Interest Litigation was rejected. It was also open for the petitioner to point out this judgment to that Court :4: :4: :4: and to convince that Court to take cognizance of the said petition. Even assuming that petition was tenable as public law litigation, it is to be noted that while rejecting earlier writ petition the Court has given those direction which could have been given considering the petition as public law litigation. Therefore, in any view of the matter present petition is not tenable in law. 6. What we find is that the process of law in the name of Public Interest Litigation or Public Law Litigation is being misused by the petitioners. We do not find any substance in the petition. Since the Government is looking after the appointment to the said post, as directed in the disposed of Public Interest Litigation, we find that this Court’s machinery should not be used by the citizens for settling personal vendetta, and therefore, to have a deterrence as against such litigations we desire to impose cost of Rs.25,000/- on both the petitioners to be paid by them jointly and/or severally. Cost to be paid by the petitioners in this Court within a period of two weeks from today. If the cost is not paid within two weeks from today, the Collector, Thane is directed to recover the same from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue within a period of six weeks thereafter. :5: :5: :5: (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)