Public Interest Litigation seeking direction to remove CRZ-violating hoardings. The High Court disposed of the petition after the respondent representative stated that all such hoardings had already been removed.
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.
Ladda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Public Interest Litigation No. 18 OF 2009
Mr Kasim Mohammed A. Badsha. ..Petitioner.
vs.
The State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors. ..Respondents.
Mr K. R. Bulchandani with Tulsi Zaveri for the Petitioner.
Shri R.P. Behere A.G.P. for the State.
Ms Sharmila Deshmukh for Respondent No.3.
Shri V.A. Nagrani i/b Shri S.V. Marne for Respondent No.4.
Shri Nitesh Naik i/b M/s Umesh Shetty & Co. for Respondent
No.5.
Shri A.A. Kumbhakoni i/b Shri A.M. Kulkarni for Respondent
No.8.
Ms Hetal Patel for Respondent No.9.
CORAM: BILAL NAZKI,
DATED : 12th August,2009
P.C. :-
The petitioner has filed this petition mainly for
seeking a direction to respondent No.4 to remove the
hoardings put up by respondent No.8 in violation of the
Regulation of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). During
the course of hearing, it was also alleged that besides
respondent No.8 there were also others who had put up
hoardings in violation of the Regulation. The learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has made a statement
that all hoardings whether put up by any of the respondents
or any third person in violation of the Regulation have been
removed. In view of this statement, no further directions
are necessary to be given in this petition.
2. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(BILAL NAZKI,J)
(A.R.JOSHI,J)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr Kasim Mohammed A. Badsha
The State of Maharashtra
BILAL NAZKI
A.R.JOSHI
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