The Court disposed of PIL No.89 of 2010 and Chamber Summons No.172 of 2016 regarding beach safety in Mumbai. Observing that courts cannot ensure safety indefinitely, the discharge of duty lies with residents and authorities.
PIL No.89 of 2010 and Chamber Summons No.172 of 2016 are disposed off.
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-89-2010.DOC
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.89 OF 2010 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.172 OF 2016
Janhit Manch & Anr. … Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents
None for the Petitioners. Mr. B.V. Samant, AGP for State. Mr. A.M. Sethna for Union of India. Mr. S.S. Pakale with Ms. K.H. Mastakar for MCGM.
Mr. Prasad Shenoy, with Leanne D’Souza and Varnalee Mishra i/b Singh and Singh / Malhotra and Hegde for Applicants.
CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. I. CHAGLA, JJ. DATED: 13TH NOVEMBER 2019
PC:-
1/2
907-PIL-89-2010.DOC
Mumbai cannot be ensured by a Court by monitoring a PIL. Ultimately, the residents and those visiting Mumbai have also to take care of the beaches and follow and abide by the instructions given to them by the local authorities and the police machineries. In the circumstances, keeping this PIL pending would serve no fruitful purpose and hence it is disposed of.
( R. I. CHAGLA, J. ) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
2/2
Janhit Manch & Anr.
Union of India & Ors.
Applicants
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
