In this intervention application, the court allowed the applicant, who was the original petitioner in a related PIL, to intervene for the interest of justice and proper adjudication. No costs were awarded.
Intervention application is allowed; parties to take steps accordingly.
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 CAW 1036-15.doc-15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1036 OF 2015
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2746 OF 2015
| Sandeep S. Thakur. | ] | …Applicant/Intervener |
|---|---|---|
| In the matter between | ||
| Gavkari Prakashan. Versus |
] | … Petitioner |
| CIDCO of Maharashtra Ltd. and Anr. | ] | … Respondents |
Mr. Sandeep S. Thakur, Applicant, present in person. Mr. G. K. S. Hedge for CIDCO. Mr. V. N. Sagare, AGP for State.
CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA & A. S. GADKARI, JJ. DATE :- DECEMBER 09, 2016 ORDER :-
This intervention application is filed by the applicant who was the original petitioner in PIL No.133 of 2011. The final order in the same resulted into the controversy so raised in the present petition. Therefore, in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication, intervention application is allowed. The parties to take steps accordingly. No costs.
(A. S. GADKARI, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
URS 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow the intervention application filed by the original petitioner in a PIL.
Gavkari Prakashan
CIDCO of Maharashtra Ltd. and Anr
Anoop V. Mota
A. S. Gadkari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
