The petitioner was absent, causing the PIL to be listed for hearing. The court dismissed the petition due to the petitioner's failure to appear and lack of interest in canvassing the matter further.
Petition dismissed due to petitioner's absence and lack of interest in proceeding.
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O. O. C. J.
PIL WRIT PETITION NO.6 OF 2006
------------------------------------:-----------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders.
coram, appearances, Court’s orders :
or directions and Registrar’s :
orders. :
------------------------------------:------------------------------------
None for petitioner.
Mr.Milind More, AGP for respondent
No.1.
-----
CORAM : H.L GOKHALE, ACTING C.J. &
V.M.KANADE, J.
DATED : 18th January 2007
P.C. :
1. Neither the petitioner nor
his Advocate is present when the
matter is called out. The matter
was notified yesterday when nobody
was present. With a view to give
an opportunity to the petitioner,
the matter is listed today.
2. Mr.More appears for
respondent No.1 and
Ms.S.Ajithkumar for respondent
No.2.
3. This is a Public Interest
Petition. The petitioner does not
appear to be interested in
canvassing the matter any further.
Petition is dismissed.
(ACTING C.J.)
(V.M. KANADE, J.)
Petitioner
Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2
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