In PIL No. 6 of 2016, a two-judge bench disposed of the petition challenging a Motor Vehicle Department advertisement and directions to withhold auto-rickshaw permits by relying on a previous decision in Writ Petition No. 2064 of 2014.
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
dssherla
10-pil-6-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 6 OF 2016
Mr. Bhau (Mhallar) Gaikwad .. Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents.
Mr. Datta Mane for the Petitioner. Mr. P.P. Kakad, AGP for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. AND M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 07 OCTOBER 2016.
P.C.
1] The present petition is filed challenging the advertisement dated 26 January 2014 issued by the Motor Vehicle Department and also a consequential directions to respondent No.2 to withhold or stop allotting auto-rickshaw permits.
2] Learned AGP for the respondent-State brings to our notice the judgment and order in respect of similar prayers which came to be dismissed on 19 June 2014 in case of Govind Alias Bhai Ganesh Tilve Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr.1 . We have gone through the said judgment and order. The Division Bench of this Court had taken all the factual situation that was narrated in various paragraphs of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the
1 Writ Petition No. 2064 of 2014
1 of 2
dssherla 2 10-pil-6-16
State and after referring to the judgment in case of Chandrakant Bapuso Otari Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.2 , wherein similar prayers sought in the said petition, which came to be dismissed and further answered each relief sought in the said writ petition.
3] In view of above, we are of the opinion that the present petition is answered by the decision in Writ Petition No. 2064 of 2014, which refers to Division Bench's decision in Writ Petition No. 2778 of 2012. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the judgment and order dated 19 June 2014 in Writ Petition No. 2064 of 2014, we dispose of the present petition.
( CHIEF JUSTICE)
(M.S.SONAK, J.)
2 Writ Petition NO. 2778 of 2012 decided on 20/4/2012
2 of 2
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Govind Alias Bhai Ganesh Tilve Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr.Referred¶2
Govind Alias Bhai Ganesh Tilve Vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr.; Writ Petition No. 2064 of 2014
Chandrakant Bapuso Otari Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.Referred¶2
Chandrakant Bapuso Otari Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.; Writ Petition No. 2778 of 2012
Mr. Bhau (Mhallar) Gaikwad
State of Maharashtra
Dr. Manjula Chellur
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
