Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale has recently restrained Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission to hear suo moto matter taken up by the commission with respect to Mahalaxmi Racecourse lease renewal.

The high court was hearing a plea filed by the Principal Secretary of the Maharashtra government’s Urban Development Department challenging the order passed by the state commission on February 17. The state commission in its order had imposed a cost of Rs 10000 each on the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra, the Additional Chief Secretary of Revenue, the Municipal Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, and the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai for failing to submit facts about the renewal of the license at Mahalaxmi Race Course.

During the hearing, the court found that the land at Mahalaxmi Race Course was given to Royal Western India Turf Club (RWITC) on a lease. The initial lease of May 1994 ended on 31st May 2013, which was apparently not renewed thereafter. The commission had taken a suo moto case based on a news article in a Marathi newspaper.

The commission had also imposed a cost of Rs 10000 in its earlier order dated 15 December 2022. The commission in its February 17 order directed the respondents to pay the amount by March 10, 2022.

Additional Government Pleader, AI Patel, submitted before the court that it was entirely unclear how a contractual matter between the State Government or the MCGM and the RWITC could ever lie within the jurisdictional remit of the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, let alone as a suo motu action. He further submitted that nonrenewal of the lease or otherwise or any alleged financial loss does not in and of itself confer jurisdiction on the Human Rights Commission.

The division bench in its March 8 order, said that prima facie the court was unable to see how such a matter would lie before State Human Right Commission. It said,

“We will hear the submissions more fully at the later date. However, in the meantime, we are prima facie unable to see how such an action is maintainable before the State Human Rights Commission or how it could have been initiated suo motu. We therefore grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (B) until the next date.”

Case Title: The Principal Secretary Urban Development Department vs Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission