Disposed

Subhash S. Sawant and Anr. v. Union of India through Its Mumbai Office and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Mar 2016PIL/11/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in Public Interest Litigation No. 11 of 2015, declined to entertain the petition citing Supreme Court precedent on locus standi. The court disposed of the PIL but directed respondents to treat it as a representation by the second petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed by directions to respondents to treat it as a representation and communicate a decision within three months.

Subhash S. Sawant and Anr. Vs Union of India… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2016)

ash

pil-11.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 11 OF 2015

¶5

Subhash S. Sawant and Another. .. Petitioners Vs Union of India and Others. .. Respondents

¶6

Shri Bhavesh Parmar i/b Shukla Devmani Jagdish and Shri Vijayprakash Yadav for the Petitioners. Shri Rui Rodriques along with Shri P.S. Gujar for the Respondent No.1. Ms. Sapna Rachure i/b M/s. T.N. Tripathi & Co fro the Respondent No.5.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & P. D. NAIK, JJ DATED : 22ND MARCH 2016

¶8

P.C.

¶9

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. Apart

¶10

from the issue of locus of the first Petitioner to maintain the Public Interest Litigation, we find that the first Petitioner is seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus. There is no averment in the Petition that the Petitioners before filing this Petition have approached the concerned authorities with a representation and that notwithstanding the representation, justice has been denied to the first Petitioner.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that this a Public Interest Litigation. A Public Interest Litigation is also a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Only the rules of locus standi are different in case of a Public Interest Litigation.

ash

pil-11.15

In view of the law consistently laid down by the Apex Court and in particular a decision in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited and Others v. Union of India¹ , we decline to entertain this Public Interest Litigation.

¶16

4. Accordingly, this PIL is disposed of.

¶17

We direct the first to fourth Respondents to treat this PIL as a representation made by the second Petitioner and take a decision thereon in accordance with law. The decision taken on the said representation by the said Respondents shall be communicated to the Petitioners within a period of three months from today.

¶18

1 (1974)2 SCC 630

Subhash S. Sawant and Anr. v. Union of India through Its Mumbai Office and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash S. Sawant and Anr. v. Union of India through Its Mumbai Office and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Vikram Vishnu Garasia Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary, and 7 Ors.

Mr. Ramnagina Yadav and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Others

Shri. Pravin Ganpatrao Kadam Vs Shri. Prakash Haribhau Londhe and Ors.

Bombay Lawyers Association Vs Union of India and Another

Praful Devaji Bahlerao Vs the State of Maha., through Secretary, Education Dept., Mumbai, and Others

Rais Khaliq Shaikh and 3 Ors. Vs the Commissioner State Excise Department Mumbai and 2 Ors.

The High Court Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Nityanand Harnarayan Mishra Vs Municipal Commissioner and 5 Ors.

Messrs Trisons Builders Vs Joseph Angelo and 3 Ors.

Neeru Batra Vs Jaswinder Paul Batra and 4 Ors.

Khoday India Limited Vs the Scotch Whisky Association and 2 Others

Jagdish I Yadav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Anisha Anand Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Salman Rafique Khot and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.