In Public Interest Litigation regarding a contract award, petitioners were absent. The court found no basis for interference in extraordinary jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of without any substantive adjudication.
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. 258 OF 2009
Gangadhar Annappa Bhosale & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. R.K.Singh, Advocate for the petitioners – Absent. Mr. Subodh S. Kurdukar, Advocate, for respondent No.11.
CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA, JJ.
DATE : 7th January, 2010.
P.C.
matter was kept back . When again it was called, none was present.
are seeking to challenge is the awarding of contract to which the petitioners were not parties.
(J.H.BHATIA,J.)
(F.I.REBELLO,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the awarding of a contract where the petitioners are not parties.
Gangadhar Annappa Bhosale
State of Maharashtra
F.I. Rebello
J.H. Bhatia
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
