Dismissed

Varsha Singh and Ors. v. the Union of India, through Information and Boardesting Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2014PIL/122/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench considered PILST 9319 of 2014 filed regarding orders against statements and photo display of Shri Aasaramji Bapu. agreeding Registrar report that dispute was individual centric, held petition could not be entertained as PIL and dismissed same.

What did the court decide?

Petition for Public Interest Litigation dismissed as not maintainable; other remedies kept open.

Varsha Singh and Ors. Vs the Union of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

pilst9319

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION ST.NO.9319 OF 2014

¶5

Varsha Singh & Others
vs.
Union of India and others

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

None for the Petitioners
None for the respondents

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶10

 DATE : JUNE 10,2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1None appears for the petitioners. The
petitioners are claiming to be the followers and
disciples of Shri Aasaramji Bapu. The first
substantive prayer made in this petition is prayer
clause (a) which reads thus:

¶13

“(a) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be

¶14

pleased to issue the Writ of Mandamus,
order or direction in the nature of such
Writ, directing the Respondents No.3 to 5
not to utter the filthy and derogatory
words and utterances against Saint Shree
Aasaramji Bapu in connection with any
complaints lodged against him in September
2013 or thereabouts still the pronunciation
of judicial order therein by the respective
courts, conducting the trial by pronouncing

¶15

pilst9319

¶16

¶17

gag orders.”

¶18

2The second prayer is again directed against the
respondent Nos.3 to 5. A Writ of mandamus is sought
against the said respondents directing them to
abstain from displaying any photographs of Shri
Aasaramji Bapu. The third substantive prayer is
again for a direction against the respondent Nos.3
to 5.

¶19

3The petitioners are claiming to be the
disciples of one Aasaramji Bapu. The petition is
filed for protecting the said Aasaramji Bapu. There
is a report submitted by the Registrar (Judicial-I)
expressing an opinion that the dispute is individual
centric and does not constitute a public interest
litigation. After having perused the averments and
prayers, we agree with the report submitted by the
Registrar (Judicial-I) that the present petition
cannot be entertained as a Public Interest
Litigation.

¶20

4We accordingly dismiss the petition. However,
we make it clear that the other remedies,if
any, available to the petitioners are expressly kept
open.

¶21

(A.S.CHANDURKAR,J.)

¶22

(A.S.OKA,J.)

Varsha Singh and Ors. v. the Union of India, through Information and Boardesting Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varsha Singh and Ors. v. the Union of India, through Information and Boardesting Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Baburao Bhimrao Kasarikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Balu Naik Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Social Welfare, Culture and Ors.

Shri Baburao Bhimrao Kasarikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishnu Balaji Gawali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dr. Shridhar Khandu Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Sunil Sukhdev Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sunil Sukhdev Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rail Parishad (N.G.O.), through President, Shri. Bipin M. Gandhi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Santosh Rangrao Gaikwad Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas and Ors.

Shri Baburao Bhimrao Kasarikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Niyojit Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Rukhi/Walmiki Magasvargiya Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha, Kolhapur Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Revenue and Anr.

Mr. Maruti Mura Vagare Vs District Officer, Sangli and Anr.

Shri. Ganesh Dnyaneshwar Kamble Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Shree Kshetra Mahabaleshwar Devsthan Trust Vs P. S. Kamble, Teh Desk Officer and Ors.