Dismissed

Maharashtra Rajya Vajane-Mape Parvana Dharak Sangathna v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2016PIL/21/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Absence of petitioner treated as affidavit support. Court held petition premature because State Government had not finalized approval to entrust certification work to service providers. Petition allowed to be closed without final decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

...

What the court decided

Maharashtra Rajya Vajane-Mape Parvana… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

skc

3-PIL-21=14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 21 OF 2014

¶7

Maharashtra Rajya Vajane-Mape Parvana Dharak Sangathna .. Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

None for Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. A. B. Vagyani – GP with Ms M. P. Thakur – AGP for State. Mr. Parag Vyas for Union of India.

¶10

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C. J. AND M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 17 NOVEMBER 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1] The petitioner has approached this court seeking declaration that constitution of Legal Metrology Act of 2009 and Legal Metrology (General) Rules of 2011 are ultra vires of Articles 14 and 19(g) of the Constitution.

¶13

2] Though the matter is listed today, none appears for the petitioner and even the petitioner is absent. Learned counsel representing the State Government and Union of India are present.

¶14

3] According to the stand of the learned Government Advocate in terms of Rules of 2013 especially with reference to section 53 of the Legal Metrology Act of 2009, the correspondence between State and Union is still under progress and no final decision whatsoever is taken on behalf of the State Government in respect of entrusting certification

1 of 2

skc

3-PIL-21=14

work to service providers as indicated in the writ petition. According to State Government, Union of India has not come out with any specific guidelines or norms how these centers by service providers have to be established in order to take a final call on the said proposal of the Union Government. Therefore, according to them the petition is premature since nothing is finalised as of today.

¶20

4] Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that since no decision as such is taken by the State to entrust the work of certification to provide centers (service providers), the petition is premature. In all probability, the petitioner is not present before us since 2013 no further steps are taken in this regard as indicated in the writ petition. Hence, we close the petition for the present reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the court in future if the proposal of the center is fructified with the approval of the State Government.

¶21

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶23

chandka

¶24

2 of 2

Maharashtra Rajya Vajane-Mape Parvana Dharak Sangathna v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Maharashtra Rajya Vajane-Mape Parvana Dharak Sangathna v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaibhav Vitthalrao Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajkumar Shivnarayan Dube and Others Vs State Election Commission, Bombay and Others

Mr.Ghansham Chaganlal Jatolia and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Vasantrao Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramesh Laxman Sawant and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Rural Development and Ors.

Manohar Narayan Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Jayant Anandrao Balugade and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Dept. of Law and Judiciary and Ors.

Mohd. Mansoor Mohd. Atik Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Mr.Ghansham Chaganlal Jatolia and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Vasantrao Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Rajendra Vasantrao Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Sunil Haliram Mulwani and Ors. Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Shri. Tofik Rafik Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept. (I) and Anr.

Nandkumar B. Pawar and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.