The Pune bench, Nagpur, dismissed a PIL seeking a mandate to the legislature to enact a statute, holding that the court cannot issue such a direction.
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.
1 / 1 906-PIL-10-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 10 OF 2022
Vidyarthi Margadarshan Bahuuddeshiya Samiti, Maharashtra - Chandrapur
-- Petitioner/s
Vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. -- Respondent/s
Mr. P.N. Shende, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Ketki Joshi, in-charge Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
ANIL L. PANSARE, JJ.
DATE : 02 MARCH 2022
P. C. :
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
[ ANIL L. PANSARE, J. ] [ NITIN JAMDAR, J. ]
Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN AGRAWAL Signing Date:03.03.2022 14:46
SUMIT
Vidyarthi Margadarshan Bahuuddeshiya Samiti
State of Maharashtra
Nitin Jamdar
Anil L. Pansare
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
