3--25-2018-PIL=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 25 OF 2018 Umesh Bajirao Khandekar … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra Through Its Principal Secretary and Ors. … Respondents …………. Mr. D.V. Sutar a/w Shruti P. Ghodake, S.M. Patil, Reshma J. Adnaik, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Vinod Sangvikar, Advocate for Respondent No.5. Dr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General a/w Mrs. Neha Bhide, Government Pleader a/w Mr. Vikas M. Mali, Additional Government Pleader, for the Respondent-State …………. CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ & MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 23rd APRIL, 2026. P. C. : Trying to enter into the realm of a private dispute, the petitioner aged about 32 years and claiming that he is a Typist, seeks a direction upon the respondent-Authority to take appropriate steps against the persons who are in unauthorized possession of Galas. 2. Mr. Sutar, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a social worker and he obtained information through Right to Information Act as to arrears of rent payable by the persons who are occupying Galas. 3. Mr. Sathe, the learned Advocate General appears for Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 2 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2026.04.24 20:06:41 +0530 3--25-2018-PIL=.doc respondent-State and raises a question of maintainability of this Public Interest Litigation. The learned Advocate General submits that necessary steps have been taken by 5th respondent-Chief Officer, Ichalkaranji Municipal Council and proceedings under the Public Premises Act have been initiated. 4. Having gone through the records of this writ petition labelled as a public interest litigation, we find that there is no public interest involved in this matter. The issue regarding unauthorised occupation or arrears of rent, shall be governed by the agreement executed between the parties. Quite apparently, the petitioner has endeavored to enter into the contractual dispute between the parties. 5. The concept of public interest litigation which originated in the guiding thought to ensure that the voice of the voiceless is heard in a Court of law seems to have been misused by the petitions like the present one. 6. Public Interest Litigation No. 25 of 2018 is dismissed. [ MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] [ CHIEF JUSTICE ] Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 2