Two merger petitions, PIL No.38 of 2013 and Writ Petition No.13518 of 2016, seeking redress on service conditions were dismissed. The court held that PILs are not maintainable in service matters.
The Public Interest Litigation and the Writ Petition were disposed of.
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.
Sherla V.
pil.38.2013+_903.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.38 OF 2013
Pralhad Keshav Patil … Petitioner Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
with WRIT PETITION NO.13518 OF 2016
Dr.Rajiv Madhukarrao Sadan & Ors. … Petitioners Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
None for the Petitioners
Mr.M.M. Pable, AGP, for Respondent – State
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATED: DECEMBER 12, 2019
P.C.:
Page 1 of 2
pil.38.2013+_903.doc
Litigation. It pertains to his service conditions. In service matters, no Public Interest Litigation can be entertained.
(R.I. CHAGLA, J.)
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Digitally signed by Vishwanath Vishwanath S. Sherla S. Sherla Date:2019.12.13 15:29:54 +0530
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Public Interest Litigation pertaining to service conditions can be entertained.
Pralhad Keshav Patil
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
