Petition in PIL No. 89/2014 dismissed for want of evidence in extraordinary jurisdiction.
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.
pil89.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.89/2014
Mahesh s/o Keshavraj Chikhale and anr. ..vs.. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors.
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI & V. M. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 21, 2016
Heard.
To appreciate the submissions made by the petitioners, various disputed questions of fact, which require evidence to be led, need to be considered. Such an exercise would not be permissible in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.
The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
kahale
Mahesh s/o Keshavraj Chikhale and anr.
The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors.
B. R. Gavai
V. M. Deshpande
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
