Mr. Sapan Shrivastava v. School Education And Sports Department And ORS.

(16)-WP-10019-15.doc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10019 OF 2015 Mr. Sapan Shrivastava ..Petitioner

Versus

School Education & Sports Department and others ..Respondents Mr. Sapan Shrivastava - Petitioner in person. Mr. S. P. Thorat, Advocate for Respondent No.1 - Thane Zilla Parishad.

Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for the Respondent - State. Mr. Prashant Kambali I/by Mr. A. S. Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Mr. A. G. Kothari, Advocate for Respondent No.5. CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J.

DATE : 4th JULY, 2019 P.C.

1] The Petitioner has been filing large number of Public Interest Litigations in this Court after obtaining information under the Right to Information Act. Questioned as to how many Petitions he has filed in public interest, the Petitioner states that he does not recollect the exact number but the same is not less than 25. 2] In the present Petition on the plea that he belongs to the economically weaker section of the society having income less than ₹ BGP. 1 of 2

(16)-WP-10019-15.doc.

1,00,000/- per annum Petitioner claims that his son is entitled to admission in a private school in the 25% quota for children whose parents have income of less than 1,00,000/- per annum. ₹ 3] It cannot be that the Petitioner has means to pay money and obtain information under the Right to Information Act and file as many as 25 Public Interest Litigations and at the same time claims to be from the economically weaker section of the society. 4] It also has to be noted that in all the PILs filed by the Petitioner, as per rules of this Court on oath he has been stating that the entire money spent in filing and prosecuting the Public Interest Litigations are from his own sources.

5] We are of the opinion that the assertion of the Petitioner that his income is less than ₹ 1,00,000/- per annum is incorrect. The Petitioner is not entitled to have his son admitted in any school in the 25% quota reserved for children whose parents' income is less than ₹ 1,00,000/- per annum.

6] The Petition is dismissed.

N. M. JAMDAR, J CHIEF JUSTICE BGP. 2 of 2