In this dismissed PIL, the petitioner in person requested compensation for legal expenses incurred. The bench held that since the respondent made payment voluntarily and no court order compelled it, costs would not be granted. The petition was dismissed.
Claim for compensation of legal expenses was rejected and the petition was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 15 OF 2003
Mr.V.M. Bhardwaj ...Petitioner V/s. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
Petitioner-in-person present.
Shri Sandeep Aole instructed by M/s.Udwadia & Udeshi for
for Respondent No.5.
Shri K.S. Dewal for Respondent no.8.
CORAM : H.S. BEDI, C.J., & V.M. KANADE, J.
DATED : DECEMBER 14, 2006.
P.C. :-
and as such we find no reason to grant costs to the petitioner.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.M. KANADE, J.
V.M. Bhardwaj
Union of India
Respondent No.5
Respondent No.8
H.S. BEDI
V.M. KANADE
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
