The High Court dismissed the PIL for lack of sufficient averments regarding public nuisance and failure by the petitioner to render material service to society, cautioning against overuse of PILs.
Petition dismissed.
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.
(19) PIL 64-15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Amk
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 64 OF 2015
Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi .. Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.. Respondents
Mr. Rakesh Agarwal for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhay Patki, AGP for Respondent No.1-State.
CORAM : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. & SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATE : 22nd AUGUST, 2019.
P. C. :
1/2
(19) PIL 64-15
under the Right to Information Act. None of these Petitioners are rendering any material or tangible service to the public at large.
[SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.]
[CHIEF JUSTICE]
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Public Interest Litigation lies merely for violation of FSI norms without showing public nuisance or material service to society.
Whether sufficient averments regarding public nuisance and material contribution to society were made in the petition.
Nitesh Mohanlal Doshi
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No.4
Pradeep Nandrajog
Bharati Dangre
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
