A PIL dismissing a petition that relied on newspaper reports without material facts, evidence, or proper pleadings, finding the petition misconceived and dismissed it with costs.
Writ petition dismissed with costs quantified in Rs. 5,000/-.
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 NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.76/2010
Ajay s/o Kamalkishor Somani ...Versus...
Union of India, Ministry of Health Through its Secretary, New Delhi and others
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders
[Shri S.P. Bhandarkar, Adv. for petitioner]
[Shri N.W. Sambre, G.P. for respdt. Nos.2 and 3]
CORAM:- V.C. DAGA AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 15.12.2010
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The entire petition is misconceived. The petition is based on the newspaper report. No material facts and/or particulars with relevant evidence are produced on record in support of the prayers made. The first prayer would suggest that even without proceeding the subject circular a prayer is made to quash and set aside the circular and various other directions are sought against the State Government without there being any material pleadings in that behalf.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).
JUDGE JUDGE
SSW
Ajay s/o Kamalkishor Somani
Union of India, Ministry of Health Through its Secretary, New Delhi
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
