In a significant order reflecting judicial restraint, the Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) that grants “Kunbi” caste certificates under the Other Backward Class (OBC) category to members of the Maratha community claiming Kunbi origins. The PIL, filed by Adv. Vinit Vinod Dhotre, alleged that the GR was arbitrary and could adversely impact other castes and communities within the OBC and Scheduled Caste (SC) categories.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad noted that an identical petition was already pending before the High Court. The State also opposed the maintainability of the PIL and raised serious doubts over its legitimacy. The Court stressed, “We cannot multiply the litigation”. In its order while dismissing the petition, the Bench observed:

“In our opinion, this is really in the public interest that there should not be a multiplicity of litigation one after the other and different individuals in the guise of public interest cannot be permitted to file writ petitions. We are therefore not inclined to entertain this petition and therefore is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to file an intervention application in pending petition.”

In a significant order reflecting judicial restraint, the Bombay High Court on Thursday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a Maharashtra Government Resolution (GR) that grants “Kunbi” caste certificates under the Other Backward Class (OBC) category to members of the Maratha community claiming Kunbi origins. The PIL, filed by Adv. Vinit Vinod Dhotre, alleged that the GR was arbitrary and could adversely impact other castes and communities within the OBC and Scheduled Caste (SC) categories.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad noted that an identical petition was already pending before the High Court. The State also opposed the maintainability of the PIL and raised serious doubts over its legitimacy. The Court stressed, “We cannot multiply the litigation”. In its order while dismissing the petition, the Bench observed:

“In our opinion, this is really in the public interest that there should not be a multiplicity of litigation one after the other and different individuals in the guise of public interest cannot be permitted to file writ petitions. We are therefore not inclined to entertain this petition and therefore is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to file an intervention application in pending petition.”