- (1.) The present connected appeals and the special leave petition to appeal are sequel to a public interest litigation and are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 14th November, 1983 allowing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) Public interest litigation is a comparatively recent concept of litigation but it occupies an important status in the new regime of public law in different legal systems. By its very nature the concept of public interest litigation is radically different from that of traditional private litigation. Ordinary traditional litigation is essentially of an adversary character where there is a dispute between the two litigating parties, one making the claim or seeking relief against the other and the other opposing such claim or resisting such relief. While public interest litigation is brought before the court not for the purpose of enforcing the right of one individual against another, as happens in the case of ordinary litigation, it is intended to prosecute and vindicate public interest which demands that violation of constitutional or legal rights of a large number of people, who are poor, ignorant or socially and economically in disadvantaged position, should not go unnoticed, unredressed for that would be destructive of the rule of law. Rule of law does not mean protection to a fortunate few or that it should be. allowed to be prosecuted by vested interests for protecting and upholding the status-quo. The poor too have a civil and political right. Rule of standing evolved by Anglo Saxon Jurisprudence that only a person wronged can sue for judicial redress may not hold good in the present setting. Therefore, new strategy has to be evolved so that justice becomes easily available to the lowly and the lost. Law is not a closed shop. Even under the old system it was permissible for the next friend to move the court on behalf of minor or a person under disability or a person under detention or in restraint. Public interest litigation seeks to further relax the rule on locus standi. This Court in S. P. Gupta v. Union of India (1982) 2 SCR 365 : (AIR 1982 SC 149) dealing with the question of public interest litigation observed: "It may therefore now be taken as well established that where a legal injury is caused to a person or to a determinate class of Persons by reason of violation of any constitutional or, legal right or any burden is imposed in contravention of any constitutional or legal provision or without authority of law or any such legal wrong or legal injury or illegal burden is threatened and such person or determinate class of persons is by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantaged position, unable to approach the court for relief, any member of public can maintain an application for an appropriate direction, order or writ in the High Court under Article 226 and in case of breach of any fundamental right of such person or determinate class of persons, in this Court under Article 32 seeking judicial redress for the legal wrong or injury caused to such person or determinate class of persons." The present is a typical case of public interest litigation and arises in the following circumstances.
(3.) The development plan for Bombay was sanctioned by the State Government on 8th August, 1966 and the verified Andheri Town Planning Scheme framed under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, came into force, after the repeal of the Bombay Town Planning Act, with effect from 7th January, 1967 and the Scheme was finally sanctioned on 11th June, 1970. Under the development plan final plot No. 14 was reserved for a bus depot of the Bombay Electricity Supply and Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as the 'BEST'), owned and run by the Bombay Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'BMC').;