The Court refused to entertain the PIL but treated it as a representation to the State Government. The Court directed the State Government to decide within six months after possibly hearing the parties.
None. Treated as representation to State Government; direction to decide within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
P.I.L. NO.135 OF 2005
Rakesh Krishnaji Patil Petitioner
vs.
The Malegaon Municipal Corporation & anr. Respondents
Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior Counsel i/b.Mr.Anil Kumar Patil for the petitioner.
Mr.P.M.Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
CORAM : R.M. LODHA & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ .
DATED : 15th February 2006
P.C.
Heard Mr.V.A.Thorat, the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner and Mr.P.M.Patil, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader.
| 2. |
We are |
not inclined |
to | entertain |
this | PIL. | However, | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| we | observe | that the |
writ | petition | shall | be | treated | as |
| representatio | n b |
y the |
pet | itioner | to | the | State | |
| Government. | The State |
Government | (Respo | ndent | no.3) | |||
| shall | take | decision in |
this | regard | as | early | as | possible |
| and |
preferably | within six |
mo | nths from |
today. | If | the | |
| State | Government | desires |
to hear |
the | pe | titioner | and | |
| respondent | no.1 | before tak |
ing | decision, | they | may | do | so |
and communicate the decision to the petitioner as soon
as taken.
(R. M. LODHA, J.)
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this PIL should be entertained or treated as a representation by the petitioner to the State Government.
Whether the State Government should decide the representation within six months.
Whether a hearing between the petitioner, respondent no.1 and the State Government is permissible before taking a decision.
Rakesh Krishnaji Patil
The Malegaon Municipal Corporation
The State Government
R.M. LODHA
ANOOP V. MOHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
