The court dismissed a PIL challenging a 2000 decision regarding government housing on a reclamation plot. The PIL was adjourned sine die due to the absence of representation by the petitioners.
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.
(16)-PIL-42-16.doc .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.42 OF 2016
Friends of Society and others ..Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others
..Respondents
None for the Petitioners.
Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for the Respondent No.1 – State. Mr. Samit Shukla a/w Ms. Trisha Sarkar I/by DSK Legal, Advocates for Respondent No.4.
Ms. Kiran Bhagalia, Advocate for Respondent No.7.
CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J.
DATE : 16th JULY, 2019
P.C.
1] None appears to prosecute the Public Interest Litigation which questions the decision taken to permit Government Housing on plot No.120, Back Bay Reclamation Block 'V', G. D. Somani Marg, Next to Jhulelal Temple, Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400 005. The earlier decision was to have houses for Fishermen.
2] We have a doubt whether a Public Interest Litigation would be tenable. We also note that the decision questioned was taken in the year 2000. The Public Interest Litigation was filed 16
BGP. 1 o f 2
(16)-PIL-42-16.doc .
years later. By that as it may, since none appears for the Petitioners, the Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.
N. M. JAMDAR, J CHIEF JUSTICE
2 o f 2
BGP.
Friends of Society
State of Maharashtra
Pradeep 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
