This PIL was dismissed as not maintainable following the Supreme Court's decision in Hari Bansh Lal, which held that such petitions are not entertainable.
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.
pil67.14.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 67 OF 2014
Siddiki Abdulahaphij Ma. Raphi .. PETITIONER
VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, GP for the State.
Mr. N. L. Jadhav, advocate for respondent no. 3.
=====
CORAM : R.M. BORDE & V. K. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 22nd AUGUST, 2014.
PER COURT :
dyb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a PIL concerning services rendered by the state is maintainable in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Hari Bansh Lal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto & othersFollowed¶13
(2010) 9 S.c.C. 655 · Who else cites this
Siddiki Abdulahaphij Ma. Raphi
The State of Maharashtra
R. M. Borde
V. K. Jadhav
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
