The PIL was dismissed for want of prosecution as the Order dated 18.11.2014 was not complied with. The Public Prosecutor represented the respondents while the petitioner was unrepresented.
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.
52 sr.no..odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 127 OF 2014
VASANT DAMU INGALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr. P.P. More, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 6.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 2ND DECEMBER, 2014.
PER COURT:
1] Nobody for petitioner. Order dated 18.11.2014, is not complied with. Dismissed for want of prosecution. Mr. More, AGP appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
[A.M. BADAR] [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI] JUDGE JUDGE.
grt/-
Vasantu Damu Ingale
The State of Maharashtra
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
A.M. BADAR
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
