The bench directed the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra to consider grievances of the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution without treating the observations as binding mandates or contrary to existing policy.
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 SIDE JURISDICTION
PIL NO.169 OF 2009 AND
PIL NO.196 OF 2009
H.G. Deshpande. .. Petitioner Vs Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents
Shri A.A. Garge i/by Deepali Patil for the Petitioner. Shri A.M. Sethna along with Ms Navenna Kumai for Union of India. Shri R.P. Behere, Addl.GP for the State.
ALONG WITH
PIL NO.196 OF 2009
Shri Vithal Narayan Patil & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs
Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents
Shri M.A. Patil for the Petitioners.
Shri A.M. Sethna along with Ms Naveena Kumai for the Union of India.
Shri R.P. Behere, Addl.GP for the State.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2009
P.C.
Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India and the
2
State submit that these matters can hardly be examined by this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Without prejudice to their rights and contentions, we think it to be more appropriate to direct the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra to consider the grievances of the Petitioners made in the present Writ Petitions in accordance with law and its policy. If upon consideration, Competent Authority is of the opinion that certain directions are needed to be passed and certain amendments need to be made, it may do so and if the opinion is otherwise, our directions should not be treated as mandate or directions to decide contrary to the policy. We have only directed the concerned Authorities to examine the matters keeping in view the importance of the questions arising in the present Writ Petitions. The Union of India and the State of Maharashtra to consider the matters expeditiously. In view of the above, both the Writ Petitioners are disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J
H.G. Deshpande
Union of India
Vithal Narayan Patil
State of Maharashtra
Swatanter Kumar
A.M. Khanwilkar
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
