IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(ORDER XXI RULE 3(1) (a))

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.____ OF 2016
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
(Arising the final judgment and order dated 24.2.2010
passed by the Honble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
Public Interest Litigation No. 108 of 2009)
WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
In the matter of:
Mr. Ashok Arjun Bhate
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
Union of India & ors

...RESPONDENTS

WITH
I.A. NO. ______ OF 2016
AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING CERTIFIED
COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER
WITH
I.A. NO. ______ OF 2016
AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
PAPER = BOOK
[FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER:
INDEX

Sr.No
.
1.
2.
3.
4.

Particular

Pages

Office Report on Limitation

Listing Porforma
Synopsis and List of Dates
The final impugned judgment and order
dated 24.2.2010 passed by the Honble
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Public
Interest Litigation No. 108 of 2009.

A
A1-A2
B1-

5.

Special Leave Petition with Affidavit

6.

APPENDIX-I
ANCIENT
MONUMENTS
AND
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES AND REMAINS ACT,
1958

7.

APPENDIX-II
ANCIENT
MONUMENTS
ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES AND
RULES, 1959

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

AND
REMAINS

ANNEXURE P-1
A true copy of Gazatte of Thana Places of
Interest of year 1882
ANNEXURE P-2
A true copy of Circular dated 10.9.1982
regarding
Preservation
of
Historical
Monuments And Ancient Remains issued by
Government Of Maharashtra
ANNEXURE P-3
A true copy of Kanheri Inscriptions on the
Magathane Caves of year 1991 published
by Shobhana Gokhale from Deccan college
PG & Research Institute
ANNEXURE P-4
A true copy of Intimation of Disapproval
from Mumbai Municipal Corporation vide
dated 20.12.2008 to M/s Shakti Insulated
Wire Pvt. Ltd.
ANNEXURE P-5
A true copy of permission for excavation
from Sub Divisional Officer, Mumbai
Suburban Disctrict to M/s Shakti Insulated

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

Wire Pvt. Ltd. vide letter dated 29.1.2009

ANNEXURE P-6
A true copy of extension of time for
permission for excavation from Sub
Divisional
Officer,
Mumbai
Suburban
Disctrict to M/s Shakti Insulated Wire Pvt.
Ltd. vide letter dated 2.7.2009
ANNEXURE P-7
A true copy of News report in Marathi Daily
Newspaper Prahar dated 31.8.2009
ANNEXURE P-8
A true copy of News report in Marathi Daily
Newspaper Prahar dated 1.9.2009
ANNEXURE P-9
A true copy of Public Interest Litigation No.
108 of 2009 filed before Honble High Court
of Judicature at Bombay
I.A. NO. ________ OF 2016
An Application for Exemption from filing
certified copy of impugned order.
I.A. NO. ________ OF 2016
An Application for condonation of delay in
filing SLP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.________OF 2016
In the matter of:
Mr. Ashok Arjun Bhate
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
Union of India & ors

...RESPONDENTS

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1.

The Petition is/are within time.

2.

The Petition is barred by time and there is delay

of

______ days in filing the same against order dated

24.2.2010 and petition for condonation of _______
days delay has been filed.
3.

There is delay of _________ days in refiling the

petition and petition for condonation of ______ days
delay in refiling has been filed.

BRANCH OFFICER
NEW DELHI
FILED ON:

/12/2016

PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING

SECTION

The case pertains to:

Central Act: (Title)

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological

Sites and Remains Act, 1958

Section:

NA

Central Rule: (Title):

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological

Sites and Remains Rules, 1959

Rule No(s):

NA

State Act: (Title):

NA

Section:

NA

State Rule: (Title):

NA

Rule No(s):

NA

Impugned Interim Order:(Date)

NA

Impugned Final Order/Decree: (Date)

24.2.2010

High Court: (Name):

Honble High
Bombay

Names of Judges:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE F.I. REBELLO AND

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE J. H. BHATIA

Tribunal/Authority: (Name)

NA

of

Judicature

at

1.

Nature of Matter:

2.

(a) Petitioner/appellant No.:

Mr. Ashok Arjun Bhate

(b) e-mail ID:

Na

Mobile Phone Number:

NA

(a) Respondent no.1:

Union of India & ors

(b) e-mail ID:

NA

Mobile Phone Number:

NA

(a) Main Category classification:

08 LETTER PETITION & PIL MATTERS

(b) Sub Classification:

0816 SLPs filed against

judgments / orders passed by the
High Courts in Writ
Petitions filed as PIL

5.

Not to be listed before:

NA

6.

Similar/Pending matter:

NA

7.

Criminal Matters:

3.

4.

Civil

Court

Criminal

a)Whether

accused/convict

has

Yes

No

surrendered:
b) FIR No.

N.A.

Police Station:

8.

N.A.

(d)Sentence Awarded:

N.A.

(e)Sentence Undergone:

NA

Land Acquisition Matters:

(a)Date of Section 4 Notification:

NA

(b)Date of Section 6 Notification:

NA

Date of Section 17 Notification:

NA

9.

Tax Matters: State the tax effect:

NA

10.

Special

Senior citizen>65 years

SC/ST
Women/Child
Disabled
Legal Aid Case
In custody

Category

(First

petitioner/

appellant only)

11.

Vehicle Number (in case of Motor

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

NA

Accident Claim matters):

12.

Decided cases with Citation:

NA

FILED BY
[
]
Advocate for the Petitioner
FILED ON

.12.2016

SYNOPSIS
This Special Leave Petition is being filed by the
petitioner against the judgment and order dated 24.2.2010
passed by the Honble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in
Public Interest Litigation No. 108 of 2009

, whereby, the

Public Interest Litigation No. 108 of 2009 was erroneously

dismissed by the Honble High Court by holding that
considering the material on record and the opinion formed
by the respective Government, it will not be possible for this
Court to direct either the Archaeological Survey of India or
the State Government to notify the said caves either under
Central Act or the State Act as Protected or National
Monument.

That it is submitted that petitioner being a citizen of

India is disappointed by the respondent no.1 to respondent
no.6. Respondent no.1 who is at under a prime duty to
protect the Magathane Caves which is a National site and
also by the fact that respondent no.6 did not take sufficient
care to look into the property while granting Intimation of
Disapproval to the respondent no.8 to develop the said
adjacent plot.

The

substantial

question

of

law

that

arises

for

consideration for this Honble Court are:A.

Whether Honble High Court failed to notice that

Respondent no.1 to Respondent no. 7 being machineries of

State fail to abide Art. 49 of Constitution of India?
B.

Whether Honble High Court failed to notice that

Respondent no. 1 to Respondent no. 7 being machineries of

State shall be under obligation to protect every monument
or place or object of artistic or historic interest, [declared by
or under law made by Parliament] to be of national
importance,

from

spoliation,

disfigurement,

destruction,

removal, disposal or export, as the case may be?

C.

Whether Honble High Court failed to notice that by the

negligence of State Authorities if any ancient monument is

deteriorated and is currently under bad condition, state
authorities cannot run away by saying its too late to declare
and protected such monuments?
D.
is

Whether Honble High Court failed to notice that there

encroachment

inside

the

caves

and

respondents authorities failed to remove it?

which

even

E.

Whether Honble High Court failed to notice that an

independent inquiry or a committee is required to be

appointed of persons holding necessary competence in the
field of History and Archeology to find out the facts about
Magathane Caves, encroachments and its present state and
to consider the measures to restore and maintain caves?
F.

Whether Honble High Court failed to notice that there

is encroachments inside the caves and within the periphery

of protected areas of caves and is required to be removed?
G.

Whether Honble High Court failed to notice that

Intimation of Disapproval granted to respondent no.5 by

respondent no.2 vide letter dated 20.12.2009 for the
purpose of development of adjacent plot is not in accordance
with law within the limits of protected area?
H.

Whether

respondent

no.5

have

carried

out

the

inspection of caves carefully and in accordance with law?

The Honble High Court of Judicature at Bombay

while dismissing the Public Interest Litigation No. 108
of 2009 did not appreciate that writ petitioner has filed
the Public Interest Litigation before Honble High Court
to show the deteriorating conditions of Magathane

Caves

which

are

of

historical

importance

and

negligence, inaction and carelessness of respondent no.

1 to 7 and its other machineries that such important
caves are being damaged.

Hence the special leave petition.

LIST OF DATES

1882

Magathane caves are set of seven Buddhist

caves also known as Vajrayana caves. The said
caves date back to between 6th and 8th century.
These caves are situated near the Poinser River.
They even find mention in the Gazette of Thane
of year 1882. A true copy of Gazatte of Thana
Places of Interest of year 1882 is

attached

as

10.9.198

ANNEXURE P-1 [PAGES____TO_____]

The Maharashtra Government by their circular

had issued guidelines pertaining to protection of

all

or

any

ancient

monuments.

The

said

guidelines were issued to all its Departments and

agencies requiring the said Departments and
agencies to take due care not to damage any
ancient

monument

whether

protected

or

unprotected. A true copy of Circular dated

10.9.1982 regarding Preservation of Historical
Monuments And Ancient Remains issued by
Government Of Maharashtra is attached as
1991

ANNEXURE P-2 [PAGES____TO_____]

The inscriptions on the Kanheri caves which are

in the vicinity also have mention of Magathane

Caves. A true copy of Kanheri Inscriptions on the
Magathane Caves of year 1991 published by
Shobhana Gokhale from Deccan college PG &
Research Institute is attached as ANNEXURE P16.6.199

3 [PAGES____TO_____]
The Department of Culture (Archeological Survey

of India) declared in its official gazette dated

16.6.1992 declared the areas upto 100 meters
from the protected limits and further beyond it
upto 200 meters near and adjoining protected
monuments to be prohibited and protected areas
respectively for purpose of both mining operation

16.8.200

and construction.
The respondent no.4 had issued a letter to the

respondent no. 3 asking them to take appropriate

action

against

encroachment

at

Magathane

Caves. No action appears to have been taken till

the date.
In the said letter dated 16.8.2007 it is stated that
the caves are situated on City survey no. 78B
and the said land is held by Government of India.
The plot adjacent to the said caves is plot
bearing C.T.S. No. 78/A-1 (87), 78/A-1-A/4, 78/A20.12.20

1-A/5 of village Magathane, Borivali (E), Mumbai.

The development rights of the said adjacent plot

08

are

granted

respondent

to
no.8

respondent

no.8.

obtained

The

Intimation

Disapproval from the respondent

said
of

no.6. A true

copy of Intimation of Disapproval from Mumbai

Municipal Corporation vide dated 20.12.2008 to
M/s Shakti Insulated Wire Pvt. Ltd is attached as
Nil

ANNEXURE P-4 [PAGES____TO_____]

The Respondent no.8 applied to Respondent no.5
for excavation of the said plot. The officer of
Respondent no.5 filed site inspection report
which surprisingly does not mentioned about the

29.1.200

existence of the caves.

On the basis of the said erroneous report, the

Respondent no.4 granted permission to the

Respondent no. 8 for excavation from the said
plot. A true copy of permission for excavation
from Sub Divisional Officer, Mumbai Suburban
Disctrict to M/s Shakti Insulated Wire Pvt. Ltd.
vide letter dated 29.1.2009 is attached as

2.7.2009

ANNEXURE P-5 [PAGES____TO_____]

The Extension of the said Excavation permission
dated 2.7.2009 was granted. A true copy of
extension of time for permission for excavation
from Sub Divisional Officer, Mumbai Suburban
Disctrict to M/s Shakti Insulated Wire Pvt. Ltd.
vide letter dated 2.7.2009

is

attached

as

31.8.200

ANNEXURE P-6 [PAGES____TO_____]

Newspaper report in Marathi daily Newspaper

Prahar. A true copy of News report in Marathi

Daily Newspaper Prahar dated 31.8.2009 is
attached

1.9.2009

as

[PAGES____TO_____]
Another Newspaper

ANNEXURE
report

in

P-7

Marathi

Daily

Newspaper Prahar. A true copy of News report in

Marathi Daily Newspaper Prahar dated 1.9.2009
is

attached

as

ANNEXURE

P-8

Sept

[PAGES____TO_____]
Aggrieved by the failure

2009

Magathane Caves being of historical importance

of

protection

of

by respondent no.1 and respondent no.2. PIL was

filed by petitioner herein raising the national
issue

before

Honble

High

Court

that

no

measures has been taken by respondent no.2 to

protect Magathane Caves and the area around it
so that it can be well preserved. A true copy of
PIL No. 109 of 2009 filed by petitioner herein
before Honble High Court of Judicature at
Bombay

is

attached

as

ANNEXURE

P-

24.2.201

[PAGES___TO___]
Honble High Court dismissed the PIL No. 109 of

2009 filed by petitioner herein by holding that

considering the material on record and the

opinion formed by the respective Government, it

will not be possible for this Court to direct either
the Archaeological Survey of India or the State
Government to notify the said caves either under
Central Act or the State Act as Protected or
12.2016

National Monument. (IMPUGNED)

Hence the SLP

Memo of parties
Honble High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
Public Interest Litigation No. 108 of 2009

Mr. Ashok Arjun Bhate, Indian Inhabitant, adult, having his

address at Siddarth Nagar, Fort Road, Opp. Tahasildars
Office, Vasai (W)
Versus
1.

Union of India through Director-General, Archeological

Survey of India, Janpath, New Delhi 110011

2.

Superintendent, Archaeological Survey of India having

his office at Mumbai Circle, Sion, Near Sion Fort, Mumbai

3.

Director, State Archeology and Museum Department,

having its office at GOM, St. George Fort, near C.S.T. Mumbai
4.

Collector, Suburban Mumbai District, having office at

New Administrative Bidg. Near Chetna College, Bandra Kurla

Complex, Bandra, Mumbai
5.

Sub

Divisional

Officer,

Suburban

Mumbai

District,

Administrative Building, 9th floor, Government Colony,

Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051
6.

Mumbai Municipal Corporation, having its office at

C.S.T. Mumbai-400001
7.

State of Maharashtra through Department of Social

Justice and Cultural Affairs having its office at Mantralaya,

Mumbai

8.

M/s Ekta Shakti Developers, a partnership firm having

its address at Vivek Enclave, Mandpeshwar Road, Borivali

(West) Mumbai 400101
9.

Shakti Insulated Wire Pvt. Ltd. c/o M/s Ekta Shakti

Developers, Vivek Enclave, Mandpeshwar Road, Borivali

(West) Mumbai 400101
//TRUE COPY//
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(ORDER XXI RULE 3(1)(a))
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.________ OF 2016
WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
BETWEEN

Position of the Parties

In the
High Court

Mr. Ashok Arjun Bhate, Indian Petitioner

Inhabitant,

adult,

having

In this
Hon'ble Court

Petitioner

his

address at Siddarth Nagar, Fort

Road, Opp. Tahasildars Office,
Vasai (W)
Versus
1. Union

of

India

through Respondent Respondent

Director-General,
Archeological

Survey

no.1

no.1

of

India, Janpath, New Delhi

110011
2. Superintendent,

Respondent Respondent

Archaeological

Survey

of no.2

no.2

India having his office at

Mumbai Circle, Sion, Near
Sion Fort, Mumbai
3. Director, State Archeology Respondent Respondent
and

Museum

Department, no.3

no.3

having its office at GOM, St.

George

Fort,

near

C.S.T.

Mumbai
4. Collector, Suburban Mumbai Respondent Respondent
District, having office at New no.4
Administrative
Chetna

Bidg.

College,

Kurla

Complex,

Mumbai
5. Sub
Divisional

no.4

Near
Bandra

Bandra,
Officer, Respondent Respondent

Suburban Mumbai District, no.5

no.5

Administrative Building, 9th

floor,

Government

Bandra
051
6. Mumbai

(E),

Colony,

Mumbai-400
Municipal Respondent Respondent

Corporation, having its office no.6

no.6

at C.S.T. Mumbai-400001
7. State
of
Maharashtra Respondent Respondent
through

Department

of no.7

no.7

Social Justice and Cultural

Affairs having its office at
Mantralaya, Mumbai
8. M/s Ekta Shakti Developers, Respondent Respondent
a partnership firm having its no.8
address at Vivek Enclave,
Mandpeshwar Road, Borivali

no.8

(West) Mumbai 400101

9. Shakti Insulated Wire Pvt. Respondent Respondent
Ltd. c/o

M/s Ekta Shakti no.9

no.9

Developers, Vivek Enclave,

Mandpeshwar Road, Borivali
(West) Mumbai 400101
All are contesting
respondents
TO,
THE HONBLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA
AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE
HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The humble petition of the
petitioner above named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH
1.

The Petitioner is preferring the present Special Leave to

Appeal against the final judgment and order dated
24.2.2010

passed

by

the

Honble

High

Court

of

Judicature at Bombay in Public Interest Litigation No.

108 of 2009 whereby the High Court has dismissed the
PIL filed by the petitioner by holding that considering
the material on record and the opinion formed by the
respective Government, it will not be possible for this
Court to direct either the Archaeological Survey of India
or the State Government to notify the said caves either

under Central Act or the State Act as Protected or

National Monument.
1A. That petitioners have no remedy for filing LPA/Writ
Appeal against the impugned order except approaching
this Honble Court by filing the present Special Leave
Petition.
2.

QUESTION OF LAW
The following questions of law arise for consideration by
this Hon'ble Court.

A.

Whether Honble High Court failed to notice that

Respondent

no.1

to

Respondent

no.

being

machineries of State fail to abide Art. 49 of Constitution

of India?
B.

Whether Honble High Court failed to notice that

Respondent

no.

to

Respondent

no.

being

machineries of State shall be under obligation to

protect every monument or place or object of artistic or
historic interest, [declared by or under law made by
Parliament]

to

be

of

national

spoliation,

disfigurement,

importance,

destruction,

disposal or export, as the case may be?

from

removal,

C.

Whether Honble High Court failed to notice that by the

negligence

of

State

Authorities

if

any

ancient

monument is deteriorated and is currently under bad

condition, state authorities cannot run away by saying
its too late to declare and protected such monuments?
D.

Whether Honble High Court failed to notice that there

is encroachment inside the caves and which even
respondents authorities failed to remove it?

E.

Whether Honble High Court failed to notice that an

independent inquiry or a committee is required to be
appointed of persons holding necessary competence in
the field of History and Archeology to find out the facts
about

Magathane

Caves,

encroachments

and

its

present state and to consider the measures to restore

and maintain caves?
F.

Whether Honble High Court failed to notice that there

is encroachments inside the caves and within the
periphery of protected areas of caves and is required to
be removed?

G.

Whether Honble High Court failed to notice that

Intimation of Disapproval granted to respondent no.5
by respondent no.2 vide letter dated 20.12.2009 for

the purpose of development of adjacent plot is not in

accordance with law within the limits of protected area?
H.

Whether

respondent

no.5

have

carried

out

the

inspection of caves carefully and in accordance with

law?
3.

DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3 (2)

The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking
leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioner against
the

against

24.2.2010

the

final

passed

by

judgment
the

and

Honble

order

High

dated

Court

of

Judicature at Bombay in Public Interest Litigation No.

108 of 2009.
4.

DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5

The Annexures P-1 to P-9 filed along with the Special
Leave

Petition

are

true

copies

of

the

pleadings/document which formed part of the record of

the case in the court below, against whose orders the
leave is sought for in the petition.
5.

GROUNDS

The Special Leave to appeal is sought for on the following

grounds.

I.

BECAUSE the judgment and order dated 24.2.2010

passed by Honble High Court of Judicature at Bombay
in Public Interest Litigation No. 108 of 2009 is against
the provisions of law and facts of the case.

II.

That petitioner being a citizen of India is disappointed

by

the

respondent

no.1

to

respondent

no.6.

Respondent no.1 who is at under a prime duty to

protect the Magathane Caves which is a National site
and also by the fact that respondent no.6 did not take
sufficient care to look into the property while granting
Intimation of Disapproval to the respondent no.8 to
develop the said adjacent plot.
III.

Because Honble High Court failed to notice that under

Article 49 of Constitution of India, machineries of State
shall be under obligation to protect every monument or
place or object of artistic or historic interest, [declared
by or under law made by Parliament] to be of national
importance, from spoliation, disfigurement, destruction,
removal, disposal or export.
Protection of monuments and places and objects
of national importance

49. It shall be the obligation of the State to protect

every monument or place or object of artistic or
historic interest, 2[declared by or under law made by
Parliament]

to

be

of

national

spoliation,

disfigurement,

importance,

destruction,

from

removal,

disposal or export, as the case may be

IV.

Because Honble High Court failed to notice that while

granting Intimation of Disapproval the respondent no.8
did not reveal that there are caves within the periphery
of 200mt from the said plot. The said intimation of
Disapproval has been obtained by respondent no.8 by
not revealing material facts.

V.

Because many people who are dwelling in the protected

area. Permission to build and run a temple of Gayatri
devi has also been granted in the protected area.
Development and excavation also is taking place in the
protected area. All these activities are going on under
the nose of respondent no. 1 to no. 7 and infact, with
due permissions of all the said statutory bodies that
have been granted without any regard to the provisions
of the Ancient Monuments and Archeological sites and

remains

act,

Archeological

1958,
sites

and

Ancient

Monuments

and

remains

rules,

and

1959

notifications issued thereunder.

VI.

Because the aforesaid caves are dated as back as

6th/8th century. Therefore, the same are of national
importance. The same are not only of academic interest
and of religious importance but also could be tourist
attraction if maintained properly. It is only because of
sheer

negligence,

inaction

and

carelessness

of

respondent no.1 to 7 and its other machineries that

such important caves are being damaged.
VII.

Because respondent no.1 to respondent are bodies of

union

of

India

entrusted

with

the

functions

of

maintaining and protecting buildings, things, sites,

caves etc of historical importance. Respondent no. 4 to
5 are bodies entrusted with duties such as conversion
of

under

of

land,

excavation

permission

etc.

Respondent no. 6 is a civic body having jurisdiction to

permit and regulate development in the region of
greater Mumbai. The Respondent no.7 is a machinery
of the State of Maharashtra. Respondent no.8 is a
developer and respondent no.9 is the owner of plot
adjacent to the said caves.

VIII.

Because keeping in view the aforesaid submission and

the law laid down by this Honble Court and in the
interest of justice, the impugned judgment of Honble
Court in writ petition deserves to set aside by this
Honble Court and liberty be given to petitioner to
agitate all issues again.

6.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:

(a)

Because prima facie of the case is in the favor of

the petitioner and if the impugned order is not
stayed then the petitioner will suffer irreparable
loss and the appellants will.

(b)

Because the balance of convenience lies in favor

of the petitioner.

7.

MAIN PRAYER:

In the above premises, it is most respectfully prayed that

this Honble Court be pleased:
i)

Grant Special Leave to Appeal against the final

judgment and order dated 24.2.2010 passed
by the Honble High Court of Judicature at

Bombayin Public Interest Litigation No. 108 of

2009; and
ii)

To pass such other order(s) as this Honble

Court may deem necessary and proper on the
facts and in the circumstances of the case and
in the interests of justice;

8.

PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF

It is therefore, also most respectfully prayed that this
Honble Court be pleased:
i)

grant ex-parte ad-interim stay the operation

of the against the final judgment and order
dated 24.2.2010 passed by the Honble High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Public
Interest Litigation No. 108 of 2009, and

ii)

pass such other order(s) as this Honble

Court may deem necessary and proper on
the facts and in the circumstances of the
case and in the interests of justice;

AND FOR THE ACT OF KINDNESS THE HUMBLE PETITIONER

BEING DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY.
Drawn by

Filed By

Sumit Pachkhande
Nagesh
Ronak Karanpuria

Drawn on:
Filed on:

Advocate for the Petitioner

/12/2016
/12/2016

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO._______ OF 2016
In the matter of:
Mr. Ashok Arjun Bhate
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
Union of India & ors

...RESPONDENTS
CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to

the pleadings before the Court whose order is challenged
and the other documents relied upon those pleadings. No
additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken
therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition.

It is

further certified that the copies of the documents/annexure

attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to
answer the question of law raised in the Petition or to make
out

grounds

urged

in

the

Special

Leave

Petition

for

consideration of this Honble Court. This Certificate is given

on

the

basis

of

the

instructions

given

by

the

Appellants/person authorized by the Petitioner/s whose

affidavit is filed in support of the Special Leave Petition.
FILED BY

Advocate for the Petitioner

FILED ON:

.12.2016
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
IA NO. _______OF 2016
IN

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO._____OF 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Ashok Arjun Bhate

...PETITIONER
VERSUS

Union of India & ors

...RESPONDENTS

AN

APPLICATION

FOR

EXEMPTION

FROM

FILING

CERTIFIED COPY OF IMPUGNED ORDER

To
The Honble Chief Justice of India
And the other companion Judges of
The Honble Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
The humble Application of the petitioner above
named.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the petitioner is filing accompanying Special Leave
Petition against the final judgment and orders dated
24.2.2010 passed by Honble High Court of Judicature
at Bombay passed in Public Interest Litigation No. 108
of 2009.
2. That the certified copy of the impugned judgment
dated

24.2.2010

are

not

readily

available

and

considering the urgency of the matter, the present

petition is being without the certified copies. However,
true typed copies of the same are being filed.
3. That the present application is being made bona fide in
the interest of justice where the balance of convenience
tilts heavily in favour of the petitioner herein and grave
and irreparable loss would occasion to the petitioner in

case the prayers made below are not allowed by this

Honble Court.
PRAYER
In the above premises, it is most respectfully prayed that
this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to:
a)

Exempt the petitioner herein from filing the certified

copy of impugned order dated 24.2.2010 passed by the
Honble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Public
Interest Litigation No. 108 of 2009 in the above
mentioned matter; or

b)

pass any other or further orders as this Honble Court

may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the
present case.

AND

FOR

THIS

ACT

OF

KINDNESS,

YOUR

HUMBLE

PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

DRAWN BY
Sumit Pachkhande
Nagesh
Ronak Karanpuria
Filed on:

.12.2016

FILED BY

Advocate for the Petitioner