The High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the State of Maharashtra's contentment authority (CIDCO)'s tender for plots. The court held it need not observe merits as the petitioner was not a 'common man'.
Public interest litigation is dismissed.
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.
pil 125.13.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 125 of 2013
Gajanan Banudas Mangate
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others.
Respondents
Mr. Sandeep S. Deshmukh, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for CIDCO.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATE : 23rd OCTOBER, 2013.
PER COURT:
1] Petitioner, who claims to be a businessman and not interested in challenge, points out that CIDCO, statutorily bound to provide residential plots /accommodation to common people at reasonable rates cannot indulge in profiteering and sale of Residential-cum-Commercial Plots through tender at exorbitant rates is, therefore, not within its jurisdiction.
2] During arguments, it has been fairly pointed out to us that petitioner is a social worker and attached to political party and also in business. Nature of business is not disclosed.
pil 125.13.odt
3] Thus, petitioner is not a common man, who can be benefited if plots are only for residential purpose. Here, plots tendered are for Residential-cum-Commercial purpose
4] In this situation, without observing anything on merits of controversy, we refuse to interfere in public interest litigation in such challenge. PIL is dismissed.
[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE] [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI] JUDGE JUDGE
grt/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in a Public Interest Litigation challenging CIDCO's tender for residential-cum-commercial plots.
Gajanan Banudas Mangate
The State of Maharashtra
B.P. Dharadhikari
Ravindra V. Ghuge
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
