This PIL petition was disposed of by keeping the cause open. The court expressed doubt regarding the petitioner's bona fides due to the absence of an affidavit despite a previous last-chance order, relying on an opposing counsel's contention that the PIL was motivated.
pet. dismissed; cause
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.
24-pil-33-2022.doc
1
Trupti
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 33 OF 2022
Shekhar Narsyya Bitla … Petitioner versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater … Bombay and Others Respondents
Mr. Taher Rangwala i/b. Elixir Legal Services for the Petitioner.
Ms.Oorja Dhond i/b. Mr.S.K.Sonawane for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5.
Ms. Manisha Jagtap for Respondent No.2.
Mr.Arshad Shaikh, Senior Advocate with Mr.Sagar Pillai i/b. Dwarkadas & Partners for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 7 JUNE 2023
P.C.:
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2 24-pil-33-2022.doc
Trupti
bona fides of the Petitioner. No affidavit is filed. The learned Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 opposes to grant any further time contending that the PIL is motivated.
( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant time to the petitioner who lacks bona fides to file an affidavit in a PIL.
Shekhar Narsyya Bitla
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay
NITIN JAMDAR
SANDEEP V. MARNE
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
