The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, is considering the question raised in this Public Interest Litigation, resulting in the court deciding not to entertain the P.I.L.
PIL disposed of without entertaining the issue.
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
I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
PIL No. 37 OF 2010
Ajay Rammohan Tiwari
v.
State of Maharashtra & ors.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr. B.G.Kulkarni & Mr. M. Anil Kumar Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Dangre Addl. G.P. for Res. no.1.
CORAM: V.C. DAGA & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 08th DECEMBER, _2010.
In view of the fact that the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, is considering the question raised in this P.I.L, we do not propose to entertain this P.I.L. This P.I.L. is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
/TA/
2
Ajay Rammohan Tiwari
State of Maharashtra
V.C. DAGA
A.B. CHAUDHARI
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
