Disposed

Bhartiya Stree Shakti through Organising Secretary Smt. Harshada Purekar v. Union of India Ministry of Information and Broadcasting through Secretary and Others

Bombay HC27 Feb 2013PIL/4/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a PIL by directing the petitioner to submit copies to the BCCC within a week. The BCCC was directed to allow the respondent to file a reply and decide the matter within four weeks. The interim order is effective for four weeks. No costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to submit copies to BCCC within one week; directed BCCC to take decision within four weeks; interim order extended for four weeks.

Bhartiya Stree Shakti through Organising Secretary… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 of 2013.

¶4

Bhartiya Stree Shakti ..vs.. Union of India and others.

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's or Judges Order Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders.

¶6

Mr.R.B.Pendharkar, Sr. Adv. with Mrs. R.S .Sirpurkar, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Mishra, Asstt.Solicitor General for respondent no.1.

¶7

Mr.S.Khedkar, Adv. for respondent no.2.

¶8

Mr.Sunil Manohar, Sr.Adv. With Mr.A.A.Naik, Adv. for respondent no.3.

¶9

CORAM: A.P. LAVANDE AND

¶10

A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 27^th FEBRUARY, 2013.

¶12

Heard Mr.R.B.Pendharkar, Senior Council for the petitioner, Shri S.K.Mishra, ASGI for respondent no.1, Mr.S.V.Manohar, Senior council for respondent no.3 and Mr.Khedkar, learned counsel for respondent no.2.

¶13

With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents no.2 and 3, the petition is disposed of in the following terms.

¶14

i) The copy of the present petition and the copy of the rejoinder filed by the petitioner shall be presented before Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC), New

¶15

¶16

Delhi by the petitioner within a period of one week.

¶17

ii) The Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC), New Delhi shall permit respondent no.3 to file reply along with documents, if any, and after hearing the parties shall take a decision in accordance with the Broadcasting Content Complaints Redressal Mechanism, within a period of four weeks from today.

¶18

iii) The interim order passed by this court shall continue for a period of four weeks.

¶19

Considering the controversy involved in the petition, respondent no.1 is a formal party and as such its consent is not necessary.

¶20

Public Interest Litigation stands accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶21

Parties to act on a duly authenticated copy of this order.

¶22

JUDGE JUDGE.

¶23

chute

¶24

Bhartiya Stree Shakti through Organising Secretary Smt. Harshada Purekar v. Union of India Ministry of Information and Broadcasting through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhartiya Stree Shakti through Organising Secretary Smt. Harshada Purekar v. Union of India Ministry of Information and Broadcasting through Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Kamalakar Madhusudan Ghate and Ors. Vs Pen Municipal Council, through Chief Executive Officer and Ors.

Ms. Medha Patkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Samaratha Krupa Vikas Mandal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Bharat Bhagwan Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Ulhasnagar Muslim Community Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vishnu Vitthal Karampuri Vs 1. Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Vishnu Vitthal Karampuri Vs 1. Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Santosh Raosaheb Kakade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ravindra S/O Keshavrao Wankhede ( in Jail) Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O.

Hiralal S/O Radhakishanji Joshi Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. . Supdt. of Police and Ors.

Bhushan S/O Kalidas Mhaskar Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Supdt. of Police and Ors.

Shri Mukesh S/O Jaidevprasad Shahu Vs Union of India through Secretary Finance Department and Others

Shri Manohar S/O Shamrao Warhade Vs Union of India, Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation Thr. Its Joint Secretary and Others

Prashant S/O Shrawan Shahare Vs State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O. Kamptee and Anr.