The petitioners did not appear for the final hearing of PIL No. 32 of 2006. The court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution, reserving rights to restore if the cause of action subsists.
Petition dismissed for non-prosecution due to petitioner's absence.
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.
pil32
1
ssp
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.32 OF 2006
Office Notes, Office
Memorandam of Coram,
appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders
or directions and
Registrar’s orders
None for the Petitioner
Mr.Manish Pabale, AGP for the Respondent No.1
Ms Jayashree Joshi i/b Mr.A.A.Garge for respondent
No.7
CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
R.D.DHANUKA,JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2016
P.C.
1When this petition was called out
yesterday for final hearing, none
appeared for the petitioner. Even
today, none appears for the petitioner.
Hence, we dismiss the petition for non
prosecution. If the petitioner applies
for restoration, he will have to
satisfy the Court that the cause of
action in the PIL still subsists.
Petitioner
Respondent No. 1
Respondent No. 7
A.S. OKA
R.D. DHANUKA
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