Petitioner sought directions to stop electricity theft in Bhiwandi and investigate officials. Court refused, noting state reported substantial revenue increase and theft elimination since franchisee appointment under Electricity Act.
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 APPELLATE SIDE
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.92 OF 2006
Mr. Vinay Kumar Parmanand Mishra v/s. The State of Maharashtra, through the Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.
.. Petitioner
.. Respondents
Mr. I.S. Thakur i/by Mr. Rathore Sunil Kumar for the petitioner. Ms. P.S. Cardoz, Assistant Government Pleader for the State. Mr. P.P. Chavan i/by M/s. Little & Co. for the respondent No.2.
CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : 4TH OCTOBER, 2007
P.C.
Heard.
(J.N. PATEL, J.)
(A.A. SAYED, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether continuing the PIL is necessary given the State's self-admitted success in eliminating electricity theft.
Whether电路中 allowing disciplinary action investigation against Electricity Board officials is warranted when the appointing authority has decided against proceeding.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vinay Kumar Parmanand Mishra
The State of Maharashtra
The Electricity Board (Impugned Party)
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
