The High Court dismissed a public interest litigation as the petitioner failed to deposit the security amount ordered on May 2, 2018, to show bonafides in prosecuting the petition.
The PIL was dismissed as the petitioner failed to deposit the security amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 138 OF 2017
Sudhir Pralhad Barge. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra & Others. ..Respondents.
..Respondents.
Mr. B. G. Tangsali for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. R. S. Apte, Senior Advocate with Mr. N. R. Bubna for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Nikhil Jayakar, Levi Rubens, Manish Acharya, <rishna Agarwal I/b Vigil Juris for Respondent No. 6.
Ms. Kiran Bagalia I/b Chitra Phadke for Respondent No. 3.
Mr. Himanshu Kode, Ms. Saloni Ghule for the intervenor.
Coram : RANJIT MORE & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. Date : June 27, 2018 .
P. C. :
1. On 2nd May 2018, we passed following order :
“Having heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and having gone through the petition, and after considering the arguments, we find that it would be appropriate to direct the Petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in this Court before the returnable date to show his bonafides in prosecuting the above petition.”
challenged before the higher courts. We are, therefore, not inclined to
entertain this PIL and the same is accordingly dismissed.
[SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
1 / 1
patilsr
Sudhir Pralhad Barge
State of Maharashtra
Others
RANJIT MORE
ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI
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
