Dismissed

Sabanand Alias Pappulad v. the State of Maharshtra

Bombay HC3 Jul 2007WP/1173/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ under Article 226 alleging unauthorised structure and corruption. The Court found no merits, noted lack of justification for delay, doubted the petitioner's standing, and dismissed the matter as an abuse of process of the Court.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to be collected by the Collector of Mumbai from the petitioner

Sabanand Alias Pappulad Vs the State of Maharshtra — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 -: 1 :-

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO. 1173 OF 2007

¶5

 Sadanand alias Pappu Lad.. ... Petitioner.
 Versus

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents.

¶7

 Mr. S.K.Chaurasia i/by Mr. A.M.Saraogi
 for the Petitioner.

¶8

 Ms. Aruna Savlw for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
 Mr.M.M.Vashi for Respondent No.3.

¶9

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.

¶10

DATED : 3RD JULY, 2007.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

 After going through the averments made in the
 petition, we are of the considered view that this
 petition be permitted to be withdrawn or in the
 alternative be dismissed as an abuse of the process of
 court.

¶13

 2. It is said to be a petition filed by a social
 worker claiming that some structure raised is
 unauthorised. We find no merits in the averments
 made. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent /
 Corporation also informed the Court that the complaint
 filed by the petitioner with the Anti-Corruption

¶14

 -: 2 :-

¶15

 Department has been found to be without any merits and
 in fact has been rejected. In this regard there is no

¶16

 averment made in the petition. There is no
 justification why the petitioner has come after such a
 considerable delay. Further more, we are clearly
 doubtful whether the petitioner has any locus to file
 the present petition as public interest litigation.

¶17

 3. We, accordingly, dismiss this petition with costs
 in the sum of Rs.10,000/-.

¶18

 4. The Collector of Mumbai is hereby directed to
 collect the amount of costs as land revenue from the
 petitioner.

¶19

 Sd/-

¶20

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

 Sd/-

¶22

SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.

Sabanand Alias Pappulad v. the State of Maharshtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabanand Alias Pappulad v. the State of Maharshtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manav Samaj Vikas Samiti Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Ramjinandan Co.Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Industrial Guards Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharshtra and 2 Ors.

Jeevan Anand Chavan Vs the Director Directorate of Medical Education and Research and 3 Ors.

Nareshchandra Kantilal Zaveri and 2 Ors. Vs Allahabad Bank and 4 Ors.

vinayak chandrakant padve and 4 Ors. Vs state of maharashtra mantraya,mum,and 4 os