Per curiam order in PIL No.169 of 2014 where the Court declined to entertain a writ petition seeking mandamus as the petitioner had not exhausted remedies by making a representation to the Appellate Authority before approaching the court.
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.
pil-169.14
1
pmw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.169 OF 2014
Rajkumar Mahadev Chorghe … Petitioner Vs. Sr. Divisional Engineer (Estate), Western Railway and others … Respondents
Mr. Indrajeet Kulkarni, for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for the Respondent No.1. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP, for Respondent No.4.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : 8th AUGUST, 2014
P.C.
. A Writ of Mandamus is sought by this Public Interest Litigation. A Public Interest Litigation is also a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and all Rules which apply to a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India apply to the Public Interest Litigation except the Rule regarding locus. We find from the averments made in the Petition that before approaching this Court, the Petitioner has not made any representation to the Appellate Authority. Hence, we decline to entertain this Petition. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. Notwithstanding the disposal of the Petition, it will be open for the Petitioner to make appropriate representation to the appropriate authority.
1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Petitioner can challenge a decision by the Appellate Authority without first making a representation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajkumar Mahadev Chorghe
Sr. Divisional Engineer (Estate), Western Railway
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
