The Bombay High Court disposed of the petition as it had already seized the same issue in PIL No. 38/10, rejecting the need for duplicate litigation.
The petition is disposed of.
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.
1.9PIL.90.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 90 OF 2016. (Smt. Pinky w/o Harendra Ukey .vs. Union of India & others)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. S.S. Sanyal, Advocate for respondent no.2, Mr. A.M. Balpande, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 3 & 4, Mr. S.M. Puranik, Advocate for respondent no.5, Mr. Vivek Palshikar, Advocate for respondent no. 6.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 1, 2016.
The Court is already seized of the present issue in P.I.L. No. 38/10. We do not find that for the same cause, there should be multiple number of Public Interest Litigations. The petition is, therefore, disposed of.
Judge
Judge
J.
1.9PIL.90.16
2
C E R T I F I C A T E
“I certify that this Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Order”.
Uploaded by : Ki. Jeswani, Uploaded on : 2.9.2016.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether multiple public interest litigation filings on the same cause are permissible.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
PIL. No. 38/10Referred¶9
Smt. Pinky w/o Harendra Ukey
Union of India
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
