None appears for the petitioner. The High Court rejected the PIL on the merits for reasons separately recorded without recording them in this order.
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.
Deshmane
1
32.PIL.110-14.doc
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.110 OF 2014 [Rail Parishad (N.G.O.) Vs. Union of India & Ors.]
Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders
Court’s or Judge’s Orders
None for the Petitioner. Mr. T.J. Pandian, for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
CORAM : A.S. OKA, AND A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ. DATE : 22nd JULY, 2014
P.C. :-
(A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)
1 / 1
Rail Parishad (N.G.O.)
Union of India
A.S. Oka
A.S. Chandurkar
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
