This order arises from a PIL concerning police protection for an individual. Relying on an affidavit confirming that protection was already provided without payment, the bench deemed it unnecessary to entertain the matter. The PIL was therefore disposed of.
The Public Interest Litigation is disposed of; no further relief granted.
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.
k 17 pil 113.10.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.113 OF 2010
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions &
Registrar’s orders.
Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2.
CORAM: A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATED : APRIL 4, 2014.
P.C. :
1 We have perused the affidavit of Shri Rajendra Kumar B. Shede, Police Inspector, District Special Branch, Kolhapur. Paragraph 5 of the said affidavit reads thus:
“5. I say that the Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai appellate Civil Jurisdiction in Public Interest Litigation No.113 of 2010 passed an order to provide police protection which is mentioned in
1/2
k 17 pil 113.10.doc
Para 3 to Shri Datta Narayan Rane. As per direction this office by letter No.DSB./Security/ 3676/2010 dated 12.06.2010 has provide police protection from 12th June 2010 without insisting for any payment till today.”
2 In view of what is stated in paragraph nos.5 and 6 of the said affidavit, at this stage, it is not necessary to entertain this Public Interest Litigation. We accordingly dispose of the Public Interest Litigation.
katkam.
2/2
ANONYMOUS PUEPIC interest
RESPONDENT
A.S. OKA
A.A. SAYED
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
