Can petition be filed merely to highlight irregularities? Bombay High Court to Kirit Somaiya on plea against Thackerays

The Bombay High Court Wednesday asked Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kirit Somaiya to explain whether petitions can be filed for merely highlighting irregularities for academic reasons without any other concrete relief being sought [Kirit Jayantilal Somaiya v Uddhav Thackeray]..A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif Doctor was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by Somaiya seeking a court-monitored investigation by the authorities into a property owned by former Chief Minister (CM) Uddhav Thackeray’s wife at Alibag in coastal Maharashtra. .The prayer in the PIL was for directions to authorities to submit reports to the Court highlighting irregularities with respect to the property. The division bench was puzzled as to how could such a relief be granted through the writ jurisdiction of the court. "Disclose for what purpose? If somebody has erred in law, then there can be some action, there could be consequences. If an illegality is found, then it can be punished or prosecuted. Merely for highlighting irregularity, petitions cannot be entertained. A petition for academic purposes without there being a cause, can we entertain?" the Court quipped. .Senior Advocate Rajeev Kumar, appearing for Somaiya, claimed that the Court’s intervention was required to determine the true nature of illegalities and irregularities committed on a property in Alibag. The plea was moved against CM Thackeray, his wife Rashmi Thackeray, Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Ravindra Waikar and his wife Manisha Waikar.It was stated that the property tax receipts established the existence of a structure which was deliberately suppressed by the CM and Waikar when submitting their affidavit before elections in terms of the Representation of Peoples Act.Somaiya also claimed in the plea to have written to State and local authorities demanding action but no steps were taken by the authorities to prosecute on his complaint since the respondents were sitting members of Maharashtra’s legislative assembly.The division bench, however, was not convinced about the purpose of the prayers in the petition. "You come to court for a grievance, not to highlight something. According to you, the respondent has done something. You try for a cure or prosecution. No petition can be entertained only for highlighting the issue," the judge said..Kumar urged the Court to consider his petition since it merely sought information as a citizen of the country. "My limited relief is because somebody has committed an offence and used his powers for his own advantage, I have gone to the authorities and they have said, 'We have no jurisdiction please go home'. The question to me is, 'Do you want to prosecute them?' I may, I may not. I have not come here for myself. l have come in the public interest to know the public truth. Let us go through public records and then see," Kumar argued..The Court remained unconvinced and decided to adjourn the matter to January 17 for further submissions by Somaiya's counsel. It directed Kumar to address them on whether such a petition could be entertained. The petition will be heard next on January 17, 2024.