Petitioner sought permission to withdraw a PIL challenging a 1997 government order. Court refused withdrawal due to public interest and issued rule. Subsequently, dismissing the petition as the Supreme Court had restored the impugned order, holding no further order as to costs.
Petition dismissed; rule discharged; no order as to costs.
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.
pilwp-2510.01
1
pmw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PIL WRIT PETITION NO.2510 OF 2001
Shekhar Shetty … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
Mr. H.S. Khokhawala i/by M/s. Nankani & Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhay Patki, Additional Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5. Mr. Durgaprasad Poojari i/by PDS Legal for the Respondent No.4.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 14th OCTOBER, 2016
P.C.
1 When the Petition is called out, the learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the Petition. Since this Petition is filed in public interest and Rule has been issued, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to withdraw the Petition.
2 The challenge in this PIL is to the order dated 29th April, 1997 passed by the Hon'ble Minister of Revenue Department of Government of Maharashtra.
3 The learned AGP has placed on record the judgment and order dated 18th July, 2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in
1 of 2
pilwp-2510.01
2
Writ Petition No.1202 of 2001 (Gorai Machhimar Sahakari Sanstha Limited and Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.). By the said judgment and order, the aforesaid impugned order dated 29th April, 1997 was set aside. However, the Division Bench clarified that pending Suit No.1169 of 1981 may be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. The said judgment dated 18th July, 2009 was subjected to a challenge by the third Respondent in Writ Petition No.1202 of 2001 by filing SLP (C) No.9403 of 2013. By order dated 21st October, 2013 the said Appeal was disposed of by the Apex Court in the light of settlement before the Apex Court. The order of this Court dated 18th July, 2009 in Writ Petition No.1202 of 2001 was set aside by the Apex Court and the order impugned herein dated 29th April, 1997 was restored and confirmed.
4 In the light of the order of the Apex Court dated 21st October, 2013, Suit No.1161 of 1989 has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge by order dated 7th April, 2014. In view of the aforesaid order of the Apex Court, now this Petition challenging the order dated 29th April, 1997 cannot be entertained as the said order has been upheld by the Apex Court. Accordingly, we dispose of the Petition. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
(A.A. SAYED, J ) (A.S. OKA, J )
2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a public interest litigation filed in public interest which had a rule issued can be permitted to be withdrawn.
Whether a writ petition challenging an order dated 29th April 1997 can be entertained after the apex court restored and confirmed that order.
Shekhar Shetty
State of Maharashtra
A.S. Oka
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
