The Division Bench dismissed two petitions challenging the validity of a Government Resolution dated 2.3.2009 regarding the opening of medical stores. The court relied on a prior Division Bench decision (Sunil s/o. Ramchandra Choudhari) which had upheld the resolution, finding no reason to deviate.
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.
sk 1
PIL186.10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.186 OF 2010
Parshram Yallappa Taru & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5207 OF 2010
Ravindra Kuber Walawde & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents
Mr.A.P.Kulkarni for the petitioners in PIL No.186 of 2010.
Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni i/b. Mr.A.M.Kulkarni for the petitioners in W.P.No. 5207 of 2010.
Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the State.
Mr.Ajay Masane i/b.Mr.N.N.Bhadrashete for resp.no.3 in W.P.No. 5207/10.
CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.
DATE : JANUARY 12, 2012.
P.C.:
As these petitions raise common questions of law and facts, they
were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
PIL186.10
sk 2
However, the Division Bench turned down the said challenge. It is, therefore, contended that in view of the decision of the Division Bench
PIL186.10
sk 3
dated 29.7.2010, the present Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
and perused the prayers in the petitions as well as the decision of the Division Bench dated 29.7.2010. Prayer clauses (A) & (B) of Writ Petition No.6187 of 2010 read thus:-
Resolution dated 2nd March, 2009 issued by
Respondent no.1, is arbitrary, ultra virus and same
be quashed and set aside by issuing appropriate
writ, order or direction”.
Perusal of the above prayer clauses of the petition clearly shows that the challenge raised in the petitions was in respect of validity of the Government Resolution dated 2.3.2009.
“1. By this petition under Article 226 of the
PIL186.10
sk 4
Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the resolution dated 2.3.2009, by which the respondent No.3 had taken a decision to set up/open medical stores in the premises of the Government Medical College & Hospital at Bombay, Nagpur and Yavatmal. The shops are to be run and managed by respondent No.3 Federation, to whom the petitioner describes as a N.G.O.”
The observations made in paragraph 1 of the order dated 29.7.2010 also clearly demonstrate that the challenge raised in Writ Petition No.6187 of 2010 by the petitioner in the said petition is identical to one raised by the petitioners in the present petitions i.e. the challenge to the Government Resolution dated 2.3.2009. It is, therefore, evident that the causes of action as well as challenge raised in the present Petitions and Writ Petition No.6187 of 2010 are similar and identical in nature. The Division Bench, in the last part of paragraph 4 of the order, has observed thus:-
“On all three grounds, therefore, the petition fails
and is dismissed with no order as to costs.”
sk 5
PIL186.10
Writ Petition are dismissed.
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the present petitions should be dismissed in view of the Division Bench decision upholding the Government Resolution dated 2.3.2009.
Whether the Government Resolution dated 2.3.2009 is arbitrary and ultra vires the Constitution of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sunil s/o. Ramchandra Choudhari v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.Followed¶27
Writ Petition No.6187 of 2010 (Sunil s/o. Ramchandra Choudhari v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Parshram Yallappa Taru & Ors.
Ravindra Kuber Walawde & Ors.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
D. D. Sinha
V. K. Tahilramani
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
