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.115 OF 2008
Shri Prakash Sitaram Kadam and others Petitioners
Vs.
The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kagal and others
... Respondents
None for the petitioners.
Ms. Jyoti Pawar, Additional Government Pleader for the State. Mr. R.D. Rane for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.
CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. DATE : 29TH JANUARY, 2009
P.C.:
Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioners. In any case, we find no reason to entertain this petition in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as it is not for this court to direct the respondents to create a revenue estate particularly when it has been stated in reply affidavit that the area in question does not satisfy the basic requirement as per the policy of the Government. Dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Prakash Sitaram Kadam and others
The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kagal and others
Swatanter Kumar
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
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
