This order disposes of PIL No. 86 of 2008 for want of prosecution. The petitioner failed to file proof of service of notice upon a respondent by the stipulated date.
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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 86 OF 2008
Tabrej A. Shaikh. .. Petitioner. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents.
None for Petitioner.
None for respondent no. 2.
Ms. Shobha Ajeet Kumar for respondent no. 1.
Mr. J.S. Saluja, AGP., for respondent no. 3.
CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 4TH NOVEMBER, 2009
P.C. :
On 7.10.2009 this Court has passed a specific order that
the petitioner should serve respondent no. 2 personally and file a
proof of service by the next date and if the proof of service is not
2
filed by the next date, the matter shall stand dismissed without further reference to the court and it was adjourned to 4.11.2009. The order is self-operative and, therefore, the petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
( J. N. PATEL, J.)
( A. A. SAYED, J.)
Tabrej A. Shaikh
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
J. N. Patel
A. A. Sayed
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
