Citizens, courts should have confidence in goverment irrespective of party in power: Bombay High Court

Citizens and courts should have trust in the governance process of government irrespective of the political party in power, the Bombay High Court observed on Thursday [Satyen Kapadia v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.]..The Court made the observation while hearing a petition challenging a December 6 Maharashtra government communication that referred to a proposal to develop land within the Mahalaxmi race course in South Mumbai into a public garden or a theme park.Representing the State authorities, Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf argued today that the petition was filed at a premature stage..In response, a division bench of Justices GS Patel and Kamal Khata cautioned the State government to take a step back and think about why such petitions come to the Court with such apprehensions early on. "We are not saying there is a failure of governance. There is perception of governance which drives these petitions. We want to go the opposite direction and say, you must trust the governance process. This has nothing to do with the ruling party or party in power. As citizens or courts, we need to have a certain level of confidence in the governance process and it has to be kept alive. There may well be 10,000 reasons for growing mistrust, we do not want to feed that beast, we cannot," the Court said. .The communication in question concerned a meeting between Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, the Commissioner of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and office bearers of the Royal Western India Turf Club (RWITC).The petitioners told the Court that a decision was taken by the Chief Minister to hold an extraordinary general meeting with the RWITC to consider terms and conditions for the renewal of a lease that expired in 2013. The petitioners raised concerns that land not part of the lease could be used for an international theme park or a public garden.The petitioners argued that these decisions were against public interest and could violate fundamental rights..Advocate General Saraf argued that these apprehensions were premature since the government had not taken any final decision yet..The Court concluded that at this stage, it could not issue a mandamus to the executive authority to take a decision in a particular manner or not to take a particular decision. The Court agreed with the statement made by AG Saraf that the communication of December 6, 2023, was not a decision in itself but it merely recorded a proposal that was made. "We are not inclined to pre-empt the decisions that may be taken by the general body of RWITC or State government. Even if the proposal is accepted by RWITC, the government has not committed to renewing the lease on the terms of the December 6 communication. It is for this reason, Saraf submits that all three petitions are entirely premature at this stage," the Court said. .The Court kept the petitions pending, clarifying that its order was not to have any effect on the decision-making process of the government. .Senior Advocates Janak Dwarkadas, Navroz Seervai, Ravi Kadam and Dinyar Madon with advocates Kunal Dwarkadas, and Suraj Iyer briefed by Ganesh & Co. appeared for the petitioners. Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Mukul Rohatgi with advocates Chirag Shah and Utsav Trivedi appeared for the BMC.Senior Advocate Tushad Cooper briefed by ALMT Legal appeared for RWITC..[Read order]