SHREEPRAKASH RAMGANESH DUBE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of parties, the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing.

(2.) THE PIL has been filed by an Association and the writ petition also is filed by a person, who claims to be a social worker. Both the Petitioners are challenging the consent terms which were filed before the Learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3104 of 2013 as well as the minutes of order which were filed in the said consent terms. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Unit Trust of India (for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 in WP No.3 of 2013 and for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in PIL No. 27 of 2013) regarding maintainability of the petitions. It is submitted that by these petitions, the Petitioners are challenging the order, which was passed by this Court in a writ petition, which was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in PIL No. 27 of 2013 submitted that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1994 AIR(SC) 1673], in the event, an order is obtained by the parties collusively and fraudulently from the High Court, such an order should be challenged in a writ petition by the third party, who was not a party to the said proceeding by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.