A PIL challenging the transfer of police personnel was dismissed for want of prosecution as the petitioner was absent from the hearing.
None
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.
4pilst1227.2014.sxw
1
hvn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (ST) NO. 1227 OF 2014
Mr. Shriprakash Neel
… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
… Respondents
None for the petitioner.
CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 12, 2016.
P.C.
None for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by Respondent No. 3, Superintendent of Police, Thane (Rural) dated 30th May, 2013 transferring 30 Police Inspectors and Assistant Police Inspectors in Thane District. The Supreme Court in various cases have categorically stated that in such matters, PIL would not be maintainable. Be that as it may, since no one is present for the petitioner. Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(MAKARAND KARNIK, J.)
(SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)
Mr. Shriprakash Neel
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Shantanu Kemkar
Makarand Karnik
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
