Petitioner challenged liquor sales in shops allotted under the Agriculture Produce Market Act. Statutory authorities filed affidavits stating shops were closed and licenses not renewed. Court held purpose of PIL served, making no further intervention necessary, and disposed of the petition.
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 PIL - 18-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 18 OF 2016
SHRIMANT SAHEBRAO PAWAR VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr. V.S. Undre, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for the respondent/State Mr. A.T. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent no.6
CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 25-07-2017
ORAL ORDER :
2 PIL - 18-2016
business or activities as permitted under the A.P.M.C. Act. and the Rules. The complaint is that contrary to the user permitted by this Act and the Rules, the allottees of the Shops/Gallas have commenced business of selling liquor. The names of the persons, who have set up Beer Bar are set out at page 49 of the paperbook.
3 PIL - 18-2016
been accepted, we do not think that anything further requires to be done in this Public Interest Litigation.
[MANGESH S. PATIL] [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI] JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
SHRIMANT SAHEBRAO PAWAR
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, KALLAMB
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
MANGESH S. PATIL
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
