Dismissed
Anil Jugallal Jaiswal v. the State of Mah and Ors.
Bombay HCPIL/126/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
126.13.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 126.13.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 126 of 2013
Anil s/o. Jagullal Jaiswal
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others.
Respondents
Mr. Vinod Patil, advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P.P. More, AGP for respondents.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
DATE : 23rd OCTOBER, 2013.
PER COURT:
1] In the light of orders passed today in PIL No. 125 of 2013 and after noting that petitioner in addition is also a Corporator, we adopt same line. We also note that petitioner has made representation for the first time protesting against commercial user of Plots by CIDCO on 17.10.2013. Thus, representation appears to have been given belatedly only to facilitate approach to this court. PIL is accordingly dismissed.
[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE] [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI] JUDGE JUDGE
grt/
Anil s/o. Jagullal Jaiswal
The State of Maharashtra
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
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