The High Court in Public Interest Litigation regarding alleged non-compliance of State Government policy on laying optical fiber cables refused to exercise writ jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to approach the Tehsildhar regarding their representation.
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
3-pil-43-16 (AS)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 43 OF 2016 Netaji R. Yadav .. Petitioner.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents.
Mr. Sachin B. Pinjari for the Petitioner.
CORAM: D.H. WAGHELA, C.J. AND M.S.SONAK, J. DATE : 7th MARCH 2016.
P.C.:
2] The petitioner raises some grievances in the matter of alleged noncompliance with the policy of the State Government as recorded in the O.M. Dated 27 April 2000 in the matter of award of contracts for laying of optical fiber cables along the roadside. The petitioner complains that cables are not being laid at a distance of 15 meters from the center of road and compensation is also not being paid to private land owners as well as to the local authorities, in whose lands, the cables are being laid. The petitioner complains that as a result of this, there is traffic congestion, occasioning inconvenience to the commuters.
3] The allegations in the petition are quite vague. Neither the local authorities nor the private land owners through whose properties such cables are being laid have made any grievance of noncompliance with the policy decisions. The work order placed
1 of 2
dssherla 2 3-pil-43-16 (AS)
on record by the petitioner, at least primafacie indicates that conditions consistent with the policy decision of the State Government have been made applicable. In these circumstances, there is no case made out to entertain this petition, which is stated to have been filed in public interest.
4] That apart, the petitioner has addressed a representation dated 3 February 2016 (ExhibitD at page 17) to the Tehsildhar, Kadegaon. Therefore, it would be appropriate that if the said authority, is directed to consider and dispose of the said representation of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
5] This petition is accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
6] All concerned to act on the basis of authenticated copy of this order.
( CHIEF JUSTICE)
(M.S.SONAK, J.)
2 of 2
Netaji R. Yadav
The State of Maharashtra
D.H. WAGHELA
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
