In this PIL, the petitioner challenged a storage agreement where the rental tenant had vacated the premises. The court held the grievance did not require scrutiny and disposed of the petition.
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.
PIL 48/13
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.48/2013
Sachin Punjaram Borde.
...Petitioner..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri A.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri M.B. Bharaswadkar, AGP for respondent no.1.
Shri R.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Shri A.V. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.3.
.....
CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 05.08.2016
ORDER :
In the instant PIL, the petitioner is questioning
the storage agreement dated 21.6.2012 entered into
between Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation and the
respondent no.3. It is informed that the respondent no.3
has already vacated the rented premises. As such, the
grievance raised in the instant PIL need not be
scrutinized. The PIL as such stands disposed of.
(K.L. WADANE, J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.) ndk/ c581620.doc
Sachin Punjaram Borde
The State of Maharashtra
Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation
The Respondent no.3 (unnamed)
R.M. BORDE
K.L. WADANE
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