The High Court dismissed a PIL regarding an appeal under the RTI Act. The petitioner was absent despite intimation, leading to the disposal of the petition without hearing.
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.
pil26
1
ssp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.26 OF2010
Prakash R. Lolekar ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
None for the Petitioner
Mr.V.P.Malvankar, AGP `A' Panel for the respondent
No.1
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
A.A.SAYED, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 28, 2014
P.C.:
1The grievance made by Shri Prakash R.Lolekar is
as regards the order passed by the State Information
Commission in the Second Appeal No.19 of 2003 under
Right to Information Act,2005.
2 Apart from the fact that the issue raised is no longer res integra, the petitioner can always adopt appropriate remedy. We must note here that as per the order dated 21st March 2014, intimation has been issued to the petitioner of the date fixed today. By the said intimation, the petitioner has been called upon to remain present in the Court. However, Shri Lolekar is not present. Even when the petition was called out in the morning session, he was not present.
pil26
2
3 Hence, in view of what is noted above, petition is disposed of.(A.A.SAYED,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)Prakash R. Lolekar
State of Maharashtra
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