Disposed
Shri.Vishwanath Laxman Jathar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Bombay HCPIL/74/2005
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN 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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 74 OF 2005
Vishwanath L. Jathar. .. Petitioner.
vs.
The State of Maharashtra
& Ors. .. Respondents.
Mrs. B.P. Jakhadi for Petitioner.
Mr. N.P. Deshpande, AGP., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM: J.N. PATEL, &
S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE: 3RD DECEMBER, 2008.
P.C.
. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length.
2. We do not find it proper to keep this petition
pending in public interest. If any person is aggrieved
he may prosecute the matter in his individual capacity
by challenging the Lottery Regulations of 1998.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner also informs this Court that so many writ
petitions are pending relating to the subject matter of
2
this petition. To this, the learned AGP., states that
he has instructions to inform the Court that in case of
lottery sponsored by other States like Assam which was
taken over by the State of Maharashtra and it was
challenged before the High Court of Assam in Writ
Petition No. 6052 of 2000 and the learned Single Judge
of the Gauhati Bench struck down Rule 9. It was
further challenged by the State by filing a Letters
Patent Appeal before the Division Bench which was also
dismissed. Therefore, the public interest litigation
is disposed of as infructuous.
(J.N. Patel, J.)
(S.J. Kathawalla, J.)
Vishwanath L. Jathar
The State of Maharashtra
J.N. PATEL
S.J. KATHAWALLA
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