Order dismissing a PIL for want of prosecution as the petitioner's counsel was absent and the office objection remained unremoved within two weeks.
PIL dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
krs
PIL237.09
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.237 OF 2009
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s orders
None present for the petitioner. Mr.A.I.Patel, A.G.P. for resp./State.
CORAM : D.D. SINHA &
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.
DATE : OCTOBER 18, 2012. P.C.:
Counsel for the petitioner absent. If the office objection is not removed within two weeks from today, the PIL shall stand dismissed for want of prosecution without further reference to Court.
(D.D. SINHA, J.)
(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)
1 of 1
Petitioner
State
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
