Public Interest Litigation declared infructuous and disposed of as the Director no longer holds the position, rendering the petition's purpose obsolete and remaining prayers consequential.
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.
PIL. 122-12
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 122 OF 2012
Dinesh Mody … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Mohit Arora, Parag Sawant, Ishita A. i/b Desai & Diwanji, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Uma Palsule-Desai, AGP for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Rui Rodrigues, for Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 26, 2016
PC.
. It is not in dispute that Respondent No. 3 is no longer working as Director. The PIL thereafter has practically become infructuous. Other prayers are consequential prayers. Therefore, the PIL does does not survive, and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/Sd/[REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]
Vinayak Halemath
1 / 1
Dinesh Mody
The State of Maharashtra
V. M. Kanade
Revati Mohite Dere
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
