Dismissed

Shri Prtap Singh Sahute v. the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Dec 2023PIL/204/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that the PIL petition was devoid of appropriate pleadings and prayers. The petitioner voluntarily withdrew the petition with liberty to file a fresh one, resulting in the dismissal of the instant petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw petition with liberty to file a fresh PIL; petition dismissed as withdrawn.

Shri Prtap Singh Sahute Vs the Ministry… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Digitally signed by LAXMIKANT LAXMIKANT GOPAL GOPAL CHANDAN CHANDAN Date: 2023.12.20 20:20:29 +0530

¶2

1 (22) PIL-204.23.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.204 OF 2023

¶5

Pratap Singh Sahute : Petitioner. Vs. The Ministry of Road Transport & Highways Transport and anr. : Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Pratap Singh Sahute – Petitioner in person.

¶7

Mr. P. P. Kakade, GP a/w Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP and Mr. M. M. Pabale AGP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 20^th DECEMBER, 2023

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1 Heard the Petitioner who appears in person.

¶11

2 The instant Petition purportedly in public interest has

¶12

been filed with the following prayers :-

¶13

“(a) Plaintiff may kindly be allowed to file this present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this Hon’ble High Court.

¶14

(b) Respondent No.1 directed to remove all Toll Naka’s illegally installed after violating the rules and regulation mentioned in the 02 x Articles in force from all National Highway’s as well as state with in the territory of India with immediate effect.

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

LGC

¶17

2 (22) PIL-204.23.doc

¶18

(c) Respondent No.2 namely (i) Chief Election Commissioner Mr. Rajiv Kumar (ii) Election Commissioners Mr. Anup Chandra Pandey and Mr. Arun Goel may pleased be directed not to entertain any nomination from from any national and regional politics party in view of coming General Election 2024 and other coming stage elections in the different states for FIVE years, with effect from passing of the order.

¶19

(d) Prayer made at Para No.14 & 16 may please be considered at heavy cost. Consequently, services of all the Politician Public Servants (except governor of state and Hon’ble President of India, while acting) will be suspended and disqualify all the Politician Public Servants from holding public offfice for five year as found guilty, politician public servants lost membership of the parliament as well as barred from contesting elections for five years in the present case with immediate effects, same will remain in force with effect of passing of the Hon’ble Court’s Order.

¶20

(e) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the Petitioner.”

¶21

3 When we pointed out to the Petitioner that this Writ

¶22

Petition in the present form cannot be entertained as the same neither contains appropriate pleadings nor prayers, the Petitioner states that he may be permitted to withdraw this Public Interest Litigation Petition with liberty to file a fresh Petition/PIL.

¶23

2 of 3

¶24

LGC

¶25

3 (22) PIL-204.23.doc

¶26

4 This Public Interest Litigation Petition is thus

¶27

dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as aforesaid.

¶28

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶29

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

3 of 3

¶31

LGC

Shri Prtap Singh Sahute v. the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Prtap Singh Sahute v. the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Transport and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubham S/O Laxman Dhage Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Ministry of Women and Child Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Rajat Banerjee vs City and Industrial Development and Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (Cidco Ltd)

Kamal Jagdish Singh vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Shailesh Gandhi and 5 Ors. vs Maharashtra State Information Commission

Dharma Rajaram Vallakati Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandeep Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandeep Kumar Indrakumar Tiwari vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Bhagvanji Raiyani vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Vardhaman Builders Vs Narendra Balasaheb Ghatge

Mahatma Education Society Vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary Urban Development and Anr.

Patil Consturction and Infrastructure Ltd. Thr. Manamath Shivaram Sakhare Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary and Ors.

Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Private Limited vs Benatton Pharmaceutical Private Limited

Lyka Exports Limited vs Neeraj Agarwal Proprietor of Cadiz Lifesciences

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Naga Sharath