The High Court of Bombay dismissed a PIL against the State of Maharashtra praying for a water supply scheme. The court held that writ jurisdiction is not appropriate for directing the framing of complex schemes concerning water supply needs.
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.
907-PIL.37.2012.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 37 OF 2012
Mr.Satish Sakharam Agashe } Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. } Respondents
Ms.Neha Bhide for the petitioner. Mr.B.V.Samant-AGP for State.
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATED :- NOVEMBER 6, 2019
P.C. :-
Page 1 of 2
J.V.SALUNKE,PS
907-PIL.37.2012.doc
is dismissed.
(R.I.CHAGLA, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
J.V.SALUNKE,PS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court in writ jurisdiction can direct the framing of water supply schemes. Whether the High Court can issue mandatory orders concerning water supply despite the complexities of scheme
Satish Sakharam Agashe
State of Maharashtra
S. C. DHARMADHIKARI
R. I. CHAGLA
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
