In a PIL regarding the averments prayed in the writ petition, the State representative submitted that competent authority would examine it and take steps according to law. The court disposed of the writ petition allowing it as no further relief was needed.
Writ petition disposed of; parties to bear their own costs.
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.7 OF 2009
Fattesing Ganpatrao Jagtap Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
Mr. Sagar Joshi with Mr. S.M. Oak for the Petitioner. Mr. P.M. Patil, AGP for the State.
CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 15th January, 2009.
P.C. :
Learned AGP appearing for the State submits that the
averments prayed in the writ petition would be examined by the competent authority and appropriate steps will be taken in accordance with law expeditiously. In view of the statement made, nothing survives in this writ petition which is accordingly disposed of by
directing the parties to bear their own costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
Fattesing Ganpatrao Jagtap
State of Maharashtra
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
