The High Court disposed of two PILs challenging the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act amendment, observing that similar challenges were already pending by property owners.
Both PILs were disposed of as unnecessary in light of similar petitions by property owners challenging the same amendment.
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
kambli
pil-43 & 50-13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO.43 OF 2013 (Not on Board)
… Rejendra Thacker ...Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents … None for the petitioner. Mr.R.J.Mane AGP for the State.
WITH
PIL WRIT PETITION NO.50 OF 2013
… Jashwant B.Mehta ...Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents …
Mr.Jashwant Mehta, petitioner in person. Mr.R.J.Mane, AGP for the State.
...
CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & M.S.SANKLECHA, J. DATE : 24 FEBRUARY 2014
P.C.:
In our order dated 19 June 2013, it was mentioned that these matters are not to be placed before the Bench of which M.S.Sanklecha, J. is a member.
1 of 2
kambli 2
pil-43 & 50-13
5. Accordingly, both PILs are disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
(M.S.SANKLECHA, J.)
2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain two PILs when similar challenges by property owners are already pending.
Whether it is necessary to entertain the PILs when property owners filed petitions challenging the validity of the same amendment act.
Rejendra Thacker
Jashwant B. Mehta
State of Maharashtra
MOHIT S. SHAH
M.S. SANKLECHA
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
