Mandamus Cannot Be Issued To Enforce Thought Of An Individual Or Organization Without Legal Basis: Bombay HC Dismisses PIL By 'Criminology Firm'
The Bombay High Court has cautioned against filing PILs without studying the legal framework while observing that a mandamus cannot be issued merely for enforcing a particular thought of an individual or an organization which is not supported by any legal premise.
The Court stated that the PIL was an example of how “multiple and omnibus prayers made without any factual or legal basis” consume judicial time in hearing frivolous matters. The Bench described the PIL as “nothing but a sheer abuse of process of Court” which deserved to be dismissed by issuing a stern warning and imposing costs on the petitioner for filing such a frivolous petition.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar observed, “A writ of mandamus is issued by the superior Courts where infringement of any legal right is established. No mandamus can be issued merely for enforcing a particular thought of an individual or an organization, if it is not supported by any legal premise. Prayers made in the PIL petition against the UNICEF (United Nations Organization) and New Zealand, cannot be entertained by the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Snehil Dhall, the petitioner appeared in person, while Addl. GP Abhahy L. Patki represented the respondents.
The PIL was filed by Crimeophobia- A Criminology Firm before the Court to issue directions for constituting an Anti-Organized Crime Unit to cancel/revoke all leases and allotment of properties within the Aarey Milk Colony, to issue a direction to shut UNICEF Aided Dairy Teaching Institute replacing it with Anti-Organized Crime Unit or Office of UNTOC.
The petitioner claimed that the PIL was presented as an expert opinion under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, based on his criminology credentials. The petition included an extensive list of 11 primary prayers and 13 interim prayers, targeting various issues on multiple subjects. These ranged from environmental concerns to the administration of ancient cave temples, the establishment of cow farms, and even the cancellation of various commercial licenses within the Aarey Milk Colony.
The Court observed, “It is not only that in the instant PIL petition multiple causes of action have been asserted but also that the petition clearly suffers from the legal vice of mis-joinder of causes of action.”
The petition also touched on the administration of religious sites, calling for the creation of a "Bombay Cave Temple Commission" under the Military Department to oversee the management of cave temples within the State of Maharashtra. Another prayer demanded the establishment of a "Transnational Sanatan Commission" to protect Hindu religious sites and properties across India and abroad, akin to the Waqf Board for Muslim properties.
“We caution the petitioner not to file any such plea without appropriately studying and acquainting himself with the legal frame-work in which petitions, specially PIL petitions, can be filed in this Court,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court imposed costs on the self-styled criminology firm.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Crimeophobia v. Ministry of Animal Husbandry and Dairy Development & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-OS:12628-DB)
