The High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the management of Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Ltd. and seeking directions on bus stops, tickets, and driver conduct. Citing affidavits showing compliance, the court rejected the PIL as non-entertaining due to lack of enforceable right.
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.
1 of 3 PIL.178.2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.178 OF 2010
Jugal Shriniwas Rathi and another versus Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Ltd. and others
Petitioners
Respondents
Mr.Amogh Paralikar for Petitioners. Mr.R.M.Pethe for Respondent no.1. Mr.Aruna Ghadge for Respondent no.3. Mr.Nitin Deshpande, AGP for Respondent no.4.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD AND S.C.GUPTE, JJ.
DATE : 2 August 2013
PC :
2 of 3 PIL.178.2010
amendment, a decision taken on 29 July 2010 according sanction for a revision in the rates of tickets has been challenged.
3 of 3 PIL.178.2010
buses are due for certification by the RTO every month and every effort is made to obtain the road worthiness certificate for at least 110 buses every month.
(DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.)
(S.C.GUPTE, J.)
MST
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a PIL seeking diverse directions regarding the management of Mumbai Public Transport Corporation.
Whether the petitioners have established an enforceable right for a full-time Chairman and Managing Director to be appointed and experts to be appointed as directors.
Whether the petitioners should be granted relief for the revival of PIL numbers.
Jugal Shriniwas Rathi and another
Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Ltd.
State Government via Respondent no.1
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD
S.C.GUPTE
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
