The High Court of Bombay, in a Public Interest Litigation, examined petitions seeking directions for CBI investigation into fund utilization and demolition of illegal structures. The Court declined to entertain the petition as a PIL and dismissed it.
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. 132-16
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 132 OF 2016
Mr. Sayyed Yusuf Afroz … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Satish Mishra, for the Petitioner.
Mr. C. P. Yadav, AGP for the Respondents.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & M. S. SONAK, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 4, 2016 PC.
reliefs:
1 / 3
PIL. 132-16
2 / 3
PIL. 132-16
any coercive steps in respect of demolition of temporary market which is occupied by hawkers / vendor of both side of the road till the pending the hearing and final disposal of present Public Interest Litigation.
2 In our view, such reliefs cannot be granted while
exercising our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We therefore decline to entertain this writ petition as PIL. PIL is therefore dismissed.
Vinayak Halemath
3 / 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court could grant the reliefs sought concerning CBI investigation and demolition of illegal structures as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226.
Whether the impugned petition should be entertained as a PIL.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mr. Sayyed Yusuf Afroz
State of Maharashtra
V. M. Kanade
M. S. Sonak
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
