This petition challenging trading without a license was disposed of as infructuous. The court held that monitoring the Corporation's prosecution is not within its Article 226 jurisdiction.
Writ petition disposed of as the matter worked out due to pending prosecution by the Corporation.
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. 14-16
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 14 OF 2016 (Writ Petition No. 121 of 2005 is converted into PIL)
Mumbai Mahanagar Vyapari Seva Parishad … Petitioners Vs. Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors… Respondents
Ms. Sumedha Rao, for the Petitioners. Mr. M. A. Sayyed, AGP for the Respondent – State. Ms. Shobha Ajitkumar, for the Respondent – BMC.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ. DATE : MARCH 7, 2016 PC.
Public Interest Litigation (for short “PIL). However, the petition has
been registered as writ petition, viz. Writ Petition No. 121 of 2005. The Petitioners are directed to amend the cause title of the petition and convert it into a “Public Interest Litigation”. Amendment to be carried
out for within one week. Office is directed to give a fresh PIL number.
1 / 5
PIL. 14-16
the Constitution of India, Petitioners are seeking following reliefs:
2 / 5
PIL. 14-16
eating house known as “MacDonald” in building known as “Agora Plaza”;
3 / 5
PIL. 14-16
4 / 5
PIL. 14-16
prosecuting Respondent No. 5, and the said prosecution is pending. In our view, the petition has itself worked out, and it has become infructuous on account of the affidavits in reply filed by the Respondent-Corporation. Learned counsel appearing on behalf the Petitioners has urged that this Court should ask the Corporation to inform this Court what is the stage of prosecution. In our view, it is not possible for this Court to monitor every prosecution launched by the Corporation, and that is not the function of this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This petition / PIL was filed in the year 2004, more than 11 years have passed. If again further directions are given by this Court, matter may not see light of the day and will remain pending for a couple of years. We are, therefore, of the view that no useful purpose would be served in monitoring the prosecution, which is initiated by the Corporation against Respondent No. 5. Writ petition / PIL is, therefore, disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Sd/Sd/[B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]
Vinayak Halemath
5 / 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should monitor the prosecution initiated by the Corporation against the respondent for trading without a licence.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Mumbai Mahanagar Vyapari Seva Parishad
Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai
V. M. Kanade
B. P. Colabawalla
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
