The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction but refused to entertain the PIL in part as no prior representation was made. It granted liberty to the Petitioner to make such representation.
Liberty granted to the Petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the appropriate authority.
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.
PIL34.13
krs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.34 OF 2014
Ketan K. Tirodkar : Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra : Respondent
Mr.Ketan Tirodkar, Petitioner in person.
…. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 01, 2014.
P.C.:
Heard the Petitioner appearing in person.
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has not made a representation to the appropriate authority for redressal of his grievance. Therefore, at this stage, we decline to entertain this PIL. We dispose of the PIL by granting liberty to the Petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the appropriate authority.
(A.S. OKA, J.)
1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Petitioner can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 without making prior representation to the appropriate authority.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ketan K. Tirodkar
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
