The High Court dismissed a PIL filed by a social worker seeking a mandatory direction to the State Government to frame a policy providing permanent accommodation to judicial officers after 15 years of service, citing jurisdictional limits and judicial adventurism.
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.
910.pilst 27143.18.doc
Urmila Ingale
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION STAMP NO. 27143 OF 2018
Ketan Tirodkar .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
Mr.Ketan Tirodkar – Petitioner-in-person. Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP for Respondent - State.
CORAM : B.R.GAVAI &
M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 03rd OCTOBER, 2018
P.C. :
. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a
direction to the State Government to frame a policy document outlining the rules for allotting permanent accommodation to
the Judicial Officers at all levels who have put in 15 years of service.
trying to espouse the cause of Judicial Officers at all levels and
1/3
910.pilst 27143.18.doc
seeking the direction that State should frame the policy that permanent accommodation should be provided to all Judicial officers who have put in 15 years of service.
2/3
910.pilst 27143.18.doc
of service cannot be said to be socially or economically constrained, so as not to approach this Court for redressal of their grievance if in fact such a grievance exits.
(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (B.R.GAVAI, J.)
3/3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a PIL can be entertained by the State of Maharashtra.
Whether the Court can direct the State Government to frame a policy for allotting permanent accommodation to Judicial Officers with 15 years of service.
Whether the request to provide permanent accommodation after 15 years of service falls within the limitations of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶20
S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 149 · Who else cites this
Ketan Tirodkar
State of Maharashtra
M.S. Karnik
B.R. Gavai
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
