The High Court at Aurangabad disposed of Public Interest Litigation No.16 of 2016, held satisfied due to a prior order at the Principal Seat, and directed the petitioner to seek remedy at the appropriate bench regarding temple access restrictions.
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.
1 43-PIL-16-16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.16 OF 2016
Dr. Vasudha Ganeshsingh Pawar,
Age 35 years, Occ. Doctor,
r/o. At post – Bhagya Nagar,
Taluka Ambad, Dist. Jalna..Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra,
through Principal Secretary,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32
and five others
..Respondents
Mr.A.N.Sabnis, advocate for petitioner
Mr.A.B.Girase, Government Pleader for respondent
nos.1, 2, 5 and 6
Mr.V.D.Sapkal, advocate for respondent no.4
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 15, 2016
PER COURT :
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner; the learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondent nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 –
State; and the learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.4.
2 43-PIL-16-16.odt
2]The learned counsel appearing for respondent
no.4 has tendered across the Bar a copy of the
letter addressed to him by respondent no.4 -
Trust. The same is taken on record.
3]In view of the order dated 1st April, 2016
passed at the Principal Seat of the Bombay High
Court in Pubic Interest Litigation No.55 of 2016,
the prayer clauses 'A', 'B' and 'D' in this Public
Interest Litigation stands satisfied.
4]So far as prayer clause 'D' is concerned, if
the petitioner has grievance about the restriction
placed on women devotee to offer prayers and
worship the idol from the sanctum sanctorum of the
temple, which is not within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Bench, the petitioner may
take appropriate remedy in that respect at
appropriate bench of the High Court.
3 43-PIL-16-16.odt
5]In the light of the above, this Public
Interest Litigation stands disposed of.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.][S.S. SHINDE, J.]
kbp
Dr. Vasudha Ganeshsingh Pawar
The State of Maharashtra
five others
S.S. SHINDE
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
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