The petitioner filed a PIL in person seeking a directive for the State to investigate the assets of a former politician. The Court dismissed the petition for want of an affidavit by the news editors to authenticate the source information.
None. The petition for writ of mandamus 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.
1
| IN TH |
E HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT B |
OMBAY | |
|---|---|---|---|
| APPELLATE | SIDE | ||
| PUBLIC | INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 116 OF |
2005 | |
| DINESH | D. KAMAT VS. |
... PETITIONER. |
|
| STATE | OF MAHAR | ASHTRA ... RESPONDENTS |
. |
| THE | PETITIONER IN P |
ERSON. | |
| MR. | P.M.P | ATIL AGP FOR RESPONDENT |
NO.1. |
| MR. | P.G. | KARANDIKAR FOR RESPONDENT |
NO.2. |
| ..... CORAM : J.N.Patel and A.A.Sayed, |
JJ. |
||
| DATE : August 29, |
2007. | ||
| P.C. | ..... | ||
| 1. | The Petitioner, who appears in person had | ||
| filed | this | Petition, seeking a writ of mandamus |
from |
| this | Court | for a direction to the Respondent No. |
1 |
| i.e. | the | State of Maharashtra to make enquiry o |
f the |
| property | of | Respondent No. 2 Manohar Joshi, who |
held |
| various | offices viz.Mayor, Opposition Leader, |
Chief | |
| Minister, | Ex-cabinet Minister and Lok Sabha |
Speaker | |
| etc. | an | d for the Order to seize the properties |
held |
in Benami and to direct the CID to register a case of
2
mass murders of persons, animals, plants etc.
| 2. | The | foundation on which this | petition | is | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| filed | is | the | news items, |
which | were | published |
in |
| various | news | pap | ers, which are |
ann | exed | as Exhibit |
"A" |
| and | "B" | to | this petition. |
This | Court can |
well | |
| understand | the | anguish exp |
ressed | by | the | Petitioner | |
| making | the | s | ubmissions, but |
we | find | ourselves | |
| helpless | in | exercising the |
wri | t | jurisdiction | under |
Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, on
the basis of the pleadings in the petition.
| 3. | So fa | r as the news | items are concer | ned, there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| is no |
affidavit | placed | before us |
of the Editor/ |
Chief |
| Editor | of those |
news | papers | that the news |
are |
| authentic | and | the |
news cont |
aining the information |
is |
| authentic, | the | authent | icity of |
the concerned |
news |
| items | and the |
y have |
sufficient | evidence with them |
of |
| which | cognizance | can | be taken |
by the Court of |
Law. |
Therefore, we are of the view that the Petition
deserves to be dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can exercise writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 226 on the basis of unauthenticated news items.
Whether an order seeking CBI/Police investigation and seizure of property without an affidavit can be maintained.
Dinesh D. Kamat
State of Maharashtra
J.N. Patel
A.A. Sayed
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
