Single judge order dismissing a PIL as it lacks public interest. The court observed the petition was likely filed by an aggrieved employee regarding an extension grant and noted judicial economy requires individual recourse rather than public intervention.
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.
PILL. 113-15
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (L) No. 113 OF 2015
Mukesh Ramesh Gupta … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents *** None for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 PC.
. None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. Even in the morning session, neither the Petitioner nor the counsel was present when the matter was called out. Even otherwise, in our view, there is no public interest involved in this PIL. The Petitioner is challenging the alleged extension which has been granted to Respondent No. 8. If any employee or a government servant is aggrieved by the said order of extension, he could very well have challenged the same by taking
1 / 2
PILL. 113-15
out an appropriate proceeding before an appropriate forum. It is obvious that the Petitioner appears to have been set up by some such aggrieved persons. PIL is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/Sd/[Mrs. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]
Vinayak Halemath
2 / 2
Mukesh Ramesh Gupta
The State of Maharashtra
V. M. Kanade
Mrs. Swapna S. Joshi
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
