2024 (1) TMI 1016 - HC - Indian Laws

Public Interest Litigation - Doctrine of Locus Standi - validity of notification dated 19 January 2024 issued by the Government of Maharashtra declaring 22 January 2024 as a public holiday on the occasion of the celebrations of the Shri Ram-Lalla Pran-Pratishtha Din - HELD THAT - The principles of judicial review in considering the legality of the decisions when tested on arbitrariness and procedural impropriety are well settled - it is not satisfying that the petitioners have made out any case to suggest that the State Government has not acted in accordance with law while issuing the impugned notification. This, more particularly, when we find that the State Government has exercised power as entrusted to it under notification dated 8 May 1968 of the Central Government. The petitioners appear to be completely unmindful of such elementary requirements when the canvass of their petition is likely to have wider ramifications. Thus such petition could not have been moved making unwarranted and untenable statements and raising contentions in such a casual manner, this more particularly despite on pointing out to the petitioners as to whether they would be serious on their contentions in the petition. There are no manner of doubt that the present proceeding is a patent abuse of process of law. The proceedings cannot be kept pending and are required to be dismissed in limine with exemplary cost.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the notification declaring a public holiday.
2. Allegations of arbitrariness and violation of constitutional principles.
3. Legality and authority of the State Government to issue the notification.
4. Political motivations and abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Summary:

1. Challenge to the Notification Declaring a Public Holiday:
The petitioners, law students from Maharashtra and Gujarat, challenged the notification dated 19 January 2024 by the Government of Maharashtra declaring 22 January 2024 as a public holiday for "Shri Ram-Lalla Pran-Pratishtha Din." The notification was issued under Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on powers conferred by a Central Government notification dated 8 May 1968.

2. Allegations of Arbitrariness and Violation of Constitutional Principles:
The petitioners argued that the notification was arbitrary, against public interest, and violated secular principles enshrined in the Constitution. They contended that the decision was ultra vires Section 25 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and violated Articles 14, 21, 25, 26, and 27 of the Constitution. They relied on several Supreme Court decisions to support their claims.

3. Legality and Authority of the State Government to Issue the Notification:
Dr. Saraf, representing the State, argued that the petition should be rejected as the Central Government notification dated 8 May 1968 was not on record, and there were no pleadings on the illegality of the power conferred on the State Government. He asserted that the declaration of holidays is an executive policy decision, not subject to judicial review unless arbitrary grounds are clearly set out. The Court noted that previous decisions by various High Courts and the Supreme Court consistently held that declaring holidays falls within the executive policy realm.

4. Political Motivations and Abuse of Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
Dr. Saraf and interveners argued that the petition had political overtones and was an abuse of the PIL process. They highlighted that the petition was filed at the last minute, moved on a holiday, and contained reckless and politically motivated statements. The Court agreed, noting that the petition was frivolous, vexatious, and lacked bonafides. It emphasized that PIL should not be used for publicity or political gains and must be pursued with clean hands and objective intentions.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners. It concluded that the declaration of holidays is a matter of executive policy and not arbitrary or against constitutional principles. The Court refrained from imposing costs, considering the petitioners were students, but cautioned them to be more careful in future legal pursuits.