Dismissed
Vikas Sadashiv Lawande and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Bombay HCPIL/212/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
212-13.doc Sequeira IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
1
908 PIL 212-13.doc
Sequeira
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 212 OF 2013
Vikas Sadashiv Lawande. .. Petitioner Vs Union of India & ors. .. Respondents
Mr.Sunip Sen a/w Mr.P.M.Jadhav, for Petitioner. Mr.A.B.Vagyani, Government Pleader a/w Mr.C.P.Yadav- Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.2 & 5 to 7. Dr.Milind Sathe, Senior advocate a/w Mr.Firdosh Pooniwalla i/by A.S.Dayal & Associates, for Respondent No.1. Mr.Parag Vyas, for Respondent No.1.
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA &
N.M.JAMDAR, JJ. Saturday 20 December, 2014.
P.C.:
We are inclined to dispose of present Public Interest Litigation specifically, in view of order dated 1 April 2014 whereby this Court permitted to delete the name of Petitioner Nos.2 to 5, who are the owners of the property in question. The Petitioner No.1 has no concern with this acquisition except being a social worker, at whose instance in view of above, we are not inclined to entertain the constitutional challenge to the Petroleum And Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User Inland) Act, 1962.
2
908 PIL 212-13.doc
2 Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 if so instructed can avail remedy in view of the liberty already granted by order dated 1 April 2014. Present Public Interest Litigation is therefore disposed of. No costs.
N.M.JAMDAR, J. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
Vikas Sadashiv Lawande
Union of India
Anoop V. Mohta
N.M. Jamdar
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