Petitioner sought PIL redress regarding a head master declared surplus. The High Court found the petitioner to be an aggrieved individual, not suitable for PIL, and disposed of the petition.
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.
vrd 1 PIL192/14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.192 OF 2014
Irgonda Melappa Biradar ...Petitioner v/s Union of India and others ...Respondents
...Respondents
Mr S.D. Thokade i/b Mr D.B. Shinde for Petitioner. Mr S.S. Pakale with Mr S.B. Shetye for Respondent – Union of India. Mr C.P. Yadav, AGP for Respondent - State.
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.
DATE : 01ST OCTOBER 2014.
P.C. :-
judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and others v/s Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2114, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli passed order on 6th August 2014 declaring Head Master as surplus. These schools are run by the linguistic minority according to the learned counsel for the
vrd 2 PIL192/14
Petitioner.
/ institutions would resort to appropriate remedy if they are aggrieved. The petitioner claims to be a retired Teacher. In view of the facts, we are not inclined to entertain this Petition as PIL. The PIL is disposed off.
( B.P. COLABAWALLA J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL J. )
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and others v/s Union of India and othersReferred¶1
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust and others v/s Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2114 · Who else cites this
Irgonda Melappa Biradar
Union of India
NARESH H. PATIL
B.P. COLABAWALLA
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
