The High Court dismissed a PIL filed under Article 226 seeking writ of mandamus. The court held that the relief was not tenable without prior representation to the competent authority.
PIL disposed of without entertaining the writ remedy pending representation to the competent 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.
ash
pil-90.12(OS)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.90 OF 2012
Ashok S/o Bansidhar Agarwal. .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and Others. .. Respondents
Shri Kishore Upadhye i/by Shri Ashok M. Saraogi for the Petitioner. Ms. Uma Palsule Desai, AGP for Respondent No.1. Shri Kamlesh Ghumare along with Ms. Sonali Jadhav for Respondent No.3. Shri Ajay Basutkar for the Respondent No.5.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ DATED : 15TH SEPTEMBER 2014
P.C.
Though this Petition is numbered as Public Interest Litigation, it is a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the relief of writ of mandamus has been sought. Before approaching the Writ Court, the Petitioner has not made any representation to the appropriate Competent Authority for redressal of his grievances. Therefore, at this stage, it is not necessary to entertain this PIL. The PIL is disposed of. However, we keep the remedy of the Petitioner of making representation expressly open.
(G.S.KULKARNI, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to entertain a public interest litigation under Article 226 without prior representation to the competent authority.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok S/o Bansidhar Agarwal
The State of Maharashtra
A.S. Oka
G.S. Kulkarni
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
