Dismissed
P.M.Radhakrishnan v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Bombay HCPIL/160/2006
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYIN THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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. 160 OF 2006
P.M. Radhakrishnan ...Petitioner
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.H.N. Mirashi for the Petitioner.
Mr.V.P. Malwankar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1,3,4 and 5.
CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE &
V.M. KANADE, JJ.
DATED : JANUARY 10, 2007
P.C. :-
. Heard Mr.Mirashi in support of this petition.
Mr.Malwankar, Assistant Government Pleader appears for
the State.
1. The petitioner makes a grievance that in various
parts of Navi Mumbai, illegal excavation and digging is
going on. Unfortunately, the petition is rather too
vague except the photograph which is at page 25. Even
the photographs also do not indicate as to whether any
digging is going on anywhere. Particulars of that plot
are also not given.
2. The petitioner claims to be a person who is
- 2 -
working for contractors who are doing the business of
earth removing. This being the position, the petitioner
should surely get the particulars.
3. Mr.Mirashi, learned Counsel for the petitioner
seeks to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a
fresh petition giving necessary particulars if the same
become available to him.
3. Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with
liberty.
(H.L. GOKHALE, J.)
(V.M. KANADE, J.)
P.M. Radhakrishnan
The State of Maharashtra
H.L. Gokhale
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