High Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.and Ruju R Thakker(Applicant)

Bombay HC12 Feb 2015CHSW/245/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court permitted intervention by Ms Ruju Thakker in a suo motu PIL and other connected proceedings. It allowed the petition/partial notice, directed the filing of written suggestions within two weeks, and permitted parties to take copies of pleadings upon payment of charges.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted for intervention; chamber summons made absolute; two weeks allowed for written suggestions; copying of pleadings permitted upon payment.

High Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2015)

chsl18

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS (L)NO.18 OF 2015 IN
 SUO MOTU PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.71 OF 2013

¶5

Ms Ruju Thakker ...Applicant
In the matter of
High Court on its Own Motion...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

 WITH

¶7

 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.51 OF 2011
Shaukatali M. Betgeri ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Ms Ruju Thakker the applicant-intervenor

¶9

Ms Devmani Shukla for the Petitioner in PIL 51/2011
Ms Geeta Shastri, Addl.G.P for State in PIL 71/2013
Mr.A.A.Garge for respondent No.5 in PIL 71/2013
Mr.Ram Apte, Senior Counsel i/b Mr.Mandar for the
respondent No.4 in PIL 71/2013

¶10

Mr.Atul Damle, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Sandep Aole
i/b Vidhi Partners for respondent No.7 in PIL
71/2013

¶11

Mr.A.M.Sethna a/w Dhanesh Shah for Union of India
Mr.Shilpen Gaonkar a/w Mr.Gaurav Deshpande and
Devyani Deshmukh i/b Kurdukar Associate for
respondent No.15

¶12

Mr.N.R.Bubna for respondent No.6 in PIL 71/2013
Ms K.R.Punjabi for B.M.C.

¶13

Mr. Kamal Khata i/b S. Saha with Mr.Rahul Mishra for
respondent No.11 in PIL 71/2013.

¶14

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.K.MENON, JJ.

¶15

 DATE : FEBRUARY 12, 2015

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

1Considering the nature of controversy involved,
we permit the intervention at the instance of the

¶18

2 chsl18

¶19

applicant. Accordingly, the Chamber Summons is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶20

2We permit the intervenor in PIL 71/2013 to
submit his suggestions in writing. The suggestions
shall be filed within a period of two weeks from
today. Copies of the same shall be provided by him
to the Advocates representing all the parties.

¶21

3We permit the parties to whom notices have been
issued to take photo copies of the pleadings and
documents on record of the Suo Motu PIL subject to
payment of copying charges. Place the petition on
10th March 2015 under the caption `Fresh Admission'.

¶22

(A.K.MENON,J.)

High Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.and Ruju R Thakker(Applicant)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

High Court on Its Own Motion v. State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.and Ruju R Thakker(Applicant)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Rafique Mohammed Husain Tinwala Vs Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Shri Sushil Baburao Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Prasad Pandurang Meher Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd, Uran Territory Region, Lpg Div. and Ors.

Dinesh Shetty and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Others

Shri. Sachin Vinayak Mane Vs Pandharpur Municipal Council, through Its Chief Officer

Tejas Prakash Shah Vs Aditi Tejas Shah