The court declined to restore a dismissed PIL concerning a complaint registered against respondents. Noting an FIR is already registered and investigation ongoing, the court held the petition worked itself out and disposed of the application.
Application for restoration of the PIL was dismissed.
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.
910-appi.30.2016
1/2
nsc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.30 OF 2016 IN
CRIMINAL PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.18 OF 2014
Rajesh Chindarkar and Anr. ...Applicants. Versus Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr.Mahadeo A. Choudhari, for the Applicants.
Mr.Vivek Kantawala a/w Bhairavi Waravdekar i/b Vivek Kantawala and Company, for Respondent No.9.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.
DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2016
P.C. :
disposed of by our order dated 22nd December, 2015. We had stated in the
said order that a complaint has been registered as against respondent no.9
and others and that an enquiry has been made by the officers as respondents
have been interrogated by the police on several occasions.
910-appi.30.2016
2/2
order or direction directing the police authorities to register an FIR against respondent nos.9 to 11.
Again an application is filed for restoration. We are not inclined, therefore, to restore the petition.
REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
V.M. KANADE, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a public interest litigation should be restored after being dismissed twice and the subject matter appearing to have worked itself out.
Rajesh Chindarkar
Mumbai Municipal Corporation
V. M. Kanade
Revati Mohite Dere
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
