Dismissed

Mr. Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. the Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs (Mha) and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Aug 2016PIL/66/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to immediately release delayed financial assistance of Rs 3,00,000 plus compensation to victim families of the 2011 Bombay serial bomb blasts. The bench held that the reliefs claimed could not be granted under writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the PIL was dismissed without adjudication on the

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's request for mandamus to enforce release of financial assistance and compensation to victim families was dismissed.

Mr. Prakash Chimanlal Sheth Vs the Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

1/2

PIL/66/2014

BDPPS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.66 OF 2014

¶5

Mr. Prakash Chimanlal Sheth

¶6

….. Petitioner.

¶7

V /s

¶8

The Union of India Through Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Others. …. Respondents.

¶9

None for the Petitioner.

¶10

Smt. S.V. Bharucha for Respondent No.1. Mr. P.G. Sawant AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶11

CORAM: V. M. KANADE &

¶12

MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

¶13

DATE: 26^th August, 2016

¶14

P.C.:-

¶15

None appears on behalf of the Petitioner.

¶16

Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 and the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶17

Petitioner has filed this PIL, seeking the following reliefs:-

¶18

“ [A] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, Direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, directing the State Govt. to immediately issue a Notification

¶19

2/2

¶20

PIL/66/2014

¶21

empowering and/or directing the Thane Collector to forthwith release the said Financial Assistance of Rs 3,00,000/- each to the said victim families/beneficiaries.

¶22

[B] That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the State Govt. to empower as well as direct the Thane Collector to release an additional Financial Assistance in the nature of a sum of Rs 2,00,000/- each to the said victim families / beneficiaries by way of compensation for the delay in payment of the said original Financial Assistance of Rs 3,00,000/declared by the Central Govt on 18/11/2011.

¶23

[C] That this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to direct the State Government to examine any other such pending cases of release of Financial Assistance to the victim families/beneficiaries of the serial bomb blasts of 13/7/2011, and to forthwith grant reliefs as above to the said families/beneficiaries.

¶24

[D] That this Hon'ble High Court be pleased to direct the State Govt. to identify the officers responsible for showing a lackadaisical and insensitive attitude in the entire episode and to take suitable action against them as permissible in law.

¶25

[E] That such other orders as Justice and convenience may demand from time to time may be passed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶26

In our view, reliefs which are claimed by the Petitioner cannot be granted by this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. PIL is therefore dismissed.

¶27

(MRS SWAPNA JOSHI, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Mr. Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. the Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs (Mha) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Prakash Chimanlal Sheth v. the Union of India through Ministry of Home Affairs (Mha) 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

Pruthviraj Hansaram Meshram Vs Union of India, through General Manager, Bilaspur and Others

Radheshyam Brahmadev Mishra Vs Chief Secretary,State of Maharastra and Ors.

Mr. Virendra Ramsamujh Mishra and 4 Ors. Vs Manish Nagar Societies' Association and 4 Ors.

Jiten Jayprakash Phondke Vs State of Maharashtra and 7 Ors.

National Federation of the Blind (Maharashtra) through Mr. Vasant Siddheshwar Hegde and Anr. Vs Department of High Education Government of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Anr.

Devendra Nath Tripathi Vs the Secretary Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and 3 Ors.

Shaikh Ilyas Bashir Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Shri Prakash P. Kukreja Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Radheshyam Brahmadev Mishra Vs Chief Secretary,State of Maharastra and Ors.

Manjula Arvind Thakkar Vs Sharekhan Limited

elbee services limited and 2 Ors. Vs tata motos Ltd.

Mrs. Seema Rohit Rokade Vs Mr. Rohit Baban Rokade

Mrs. Kavita Shah Vs Stochastic Securities Pvt. Ltd.

Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Other