The High Court of Bombay considered a PIL challenging notification banning road closures for the Standard Chartered Mumbai Marathon-2006. The court held that restrictions under the Bombay Police Act were reasonable and did not violate Article 19, dismissing the petition.
The petition challenging the road closure notification is rejected.
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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (PIL) (LODGING) NO. 7 OF 2006
Dilip Vrajlal Shah ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors.
... Respondents.
Mr. Rajiv Narula with Mr. D. Mehta, instructed by M/s. Jhangiani, Narula & Associates, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.M. Sawant, Government Pleader, with Mr.Amjad Sayyed, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. P.N. Modi with Ms. Bindi Dave and Mr. Kunal Vajani, instructed by M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co., for respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
CORAM : V.G. PALSHIKAR, Ag. C.J., & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.
DATE: JANUARY 12, 2006 .
P.C.
By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the Notification
issued by the Bombay Police under Section 33 (b) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, making travel restrictions on certain roads so that the Standard Chartered Mumbai Marathon-2006 takes place smoothly and to the satisfaction of all.
-2-
suspension of the fundamental right of the petitioner and may, in a given situation, cause serious harm to the residents along the road.
“In the event of any emergency/urgency to any of the residence the provision has been made to reach the closest junction by using earmarked lane and from there onwards on diverted roads”
The note further says that the Police Officers and men on “bandobast” have been sensitised about the arrangement.
-3-
the limits mentioned in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution. In such circumstances, no interference is called for. The Petition is rejected.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether temporary travel restrictions imposed under the Bombay Police Act for a marathon event constitute an unreasonable infringement of fundamental rights under Article 19.
Whether the partial closure of roads to facilitate the Standard Chartered Mumbai Marathon requires judicial interference.
If the infringement of Article 19 is covered by the reasonable restrictions mentioned in Article 19(2).
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dilip Vrajlal Shah
State of Maharashtra
V.G. PALSHIKAR
NISHITA MHATRE
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
