Petitioner did not wish to press the PIL regarding heirship certificate and tenement transfer. Court disposed of the petition as not pressed after perusing the averments.
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-222.10
1
pmw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.222 OF 2010
Shri. Santosh Pandurang Doke ... Petitioner
Vs.
Sou. Lilawati Maruti Ambivale and others ... Respondents
Mr. U.B. Nighot, for the Petitioner. Mr. Pratibha Shelke i/by Mr. R.A. Thorat, for Respondent No.1. Mr. N.N. Bhadrashete, for Respondent No.4. Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 12 and 14.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : 11th MARCH, 2014
P.C.
. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that
the Petitioner does not want to press the Petition. We have perused the
averments made in the Petition. It appears to us that the fourth Respondent has acted upon the Heirship Certificate granted by the Competent Court while transferring the tenements.
(A.A. SAYED, J ) (A.S.OKA, J )
1 of 1
Shri. Santosh Pandurang Doke
Sou. Lilawati Maruti Ambivale and others
A.S. OKA
A.A. SAYED
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
