Counsel for the petitioner submitted that due to a subsequent development, no issue survived for consideration. Accordingly, the Judge disposed of the PIL and civil application.
Disposed of the petition and civil application.
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.
170.12.doc
1
SQP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.170 OF 2012 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6 OF 2013
Subhash Prabhakar Patil ...Petitioner
Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents
Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for Petitioners
Mr.S.K.Shinde, G.P. with Mr.Jaydeep Deo, A.G.P. for Respondent-State
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND
A.P.BHANGALE, JJ. DATED:- MARCH 6, 2013
P.C.
subsequent development, nothing survives for consideration in this Petition.
Accordingly, petition as well as application is disposed of.
(A.P.BHANGALE, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)
1/1
SQ Pathan
Subhash Prabhakar Patil
State of Maharashtra
A.M.Khanwilkar
A.P.Bhangale
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
