PIL petition for non-appearance of the petitioner was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Petition dismissed for non-appearance.
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.
(7) PIL 8-16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Amk
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 8 OF 2016
Vishwash Pandurang Gadigaonkar .. Petitioner Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
None for the Petitioner.
Mr. Dushyant Kumar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 4, 5, 6 & 7-State. Ms. K. H. Mastakar for Respondent Nos.2 & 3-MCGM.
CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 12th JULY, 2019.
P. C. :
Order sheets show that none has been appearing on behalf of the Petitioner on the three dates. None appears for the Petitioner even today. The Petition is dismissed for non prosecution.
[N. M. JAMDAR, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
1/1
Vishwash Pandurang Gadigaonkar
The State of Maharashtra
PRADHEEP NANDRAJOG
N. M. JAMDAR
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
