SACHIN S/O GOPAL BHANAGE Vs. HON BLE CHIEF MINISTER, & MINISTER OF LAW & JUDICIARY DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By these Public Interest Litigations, the petitioners are praying that the order dated 28th July, 2016, issued by the Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra, appointing respondent Nos.4to 15 in PIL No.102 of 2016 as Members of the Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust, Shirdi, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) The prayer is that this Court should call for the records in relation to these appointments and after a perusal and scrutiny thereof by an appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the order be set aside and the appointments be quashed.

(3.) At the outset, we must express our strong displeasure at multiple Public Interest Litigations being filed and registered as such on the same subject matter and issue. It may be that there are several public spirited citizens and interested allegedly in efficient, proper and smooth administration of the affairs of Shri Saibaba Sansthan Trust (Shirdi) but that does not justify the Registry allowing filing and lodging, so also registration of these number of PILs. More so, when the issue raised is identical, the subject matter is the same and even the reliefs prayed are similar. Each one of them claims to be aggrieved and dissatisfied with such appointment as are made under the above order of the State Government. Once there is a PIL and earlier in point of time, duly registered as such, then, it is the bounden duty of the Registry to verify and scrutinize the record and with the aid of modern technology it is not too much to expect from the Registry, if it informs an interested litigant allegedly moving in public interest that a PIL is already registered on the same subject and is pending. If the subsequent applicant still insists on his application being treated as a PIL, the Registry can, in such circumstances, place the matter before the competent Court and seek its directions. It is then for the Court to adopt an appropriate course so that multiplicity of PILS on the same subject matter is avoided and equally repetitive arguments.