Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was dismissed for want of prosecution as the petitioner was not present or represented.
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. 91-13
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No. 91 OF 2013
Shri C. R. Jaya Sukin …. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ….. Respondents
None for the Petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP for the Respondent - State.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE, ACTING CJ & REVATI MOHITE-DERE, J.
DATE : JANUARY 15, 2016
PC.
. None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. Even on the earlier occasion, when the matter came on board, neither Petitioner nor his counsel remained present. It appears that Petitioner is not keen in pursuing the PIL. PIL is, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution.
Sd/Sd/[REVATI MOHITE-DERE, J.] [ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE]
Vinayak Halemath
1 / 1
Shri C. R. Jaya Sukin
The State of Maharashtra
V. M. Kanade
Revati Mohite-Dere
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
