The High Court accepted the State's undertaking to reconstruct a cement wall damaged during monsoon before disposing of the Public Interest Litigation.
Directions to prosecute wrongdoers, reconstruct the wall, and recover expenditure from them were issued pursuant to the State’s undertaking.
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
918pil90o15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 90 OF 2015
JANARDHAN BHAURAO KARAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Kasliwal h/f Mr.Kasliwal Anil H. GP for Respondents/ State : Mr.A.B.Girase. Advocate for Respondent 7 : Mr.N.D.Kendre.
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI AND
MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE :- 02nd August, 2017
P.C.:
1 In the light of the affidavit and particularly the assurance given that as soon as the water recedes or that rainy season comes to an end, the Authorities would endeavour to reconstruct the cement wall, that we do not think that the Public Interest Litigation should be kept pending.
2 We accept this statement as an undertaking given to this Court. We direct that not only the miscreants or wrongdoers should be punished in accordance with law by prosecuting them in the competent criminal court, but after reconstruction is carried out, the expenditure for the same be recovered from them in accordance with law. We expect all these actions to be taken so that there is deterrent against future obstructions or impediments by any local person.
3 The Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.
(MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)
( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )
kps
JANARDHAN BHAURAO KARAD
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
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
