Dismissed¶19

Abdul Samee Siddiqui v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jan 2025PIL/85/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Interest Litigation dismissed as withdrawn; petitioner held to be an aggrieved person despite PIL styling; writ of certiorari against impugned order dated 20/12/2017 of Respondent No.5; alleged RBI inaction against Respondent No.6; deletion of prayer clause (g); security deposit Rs.5,00,000/- reduced to Rs.3,00,000/- and ordered refunded; liberty to file fresh petition; Bombay High Court; Alok Aradhe CJ; Bharati Dangre J; 29 January 2025; PIL No. 85 of 2024.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh Petition, if so advised; refund of the Rs.3,00,000/- deposit by the Office. ¶19

Abdul Samee Siddiqui vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(31)PIL85-2024.doc

¶2

rajshree

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.85 OF 2024

¶4

Abdul Samee Siddiqui	] ..	Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.	] ..	Respondents

¶5

Mr.Bahraiz Irani a/w Afrin Dalal and Anosh Irani for the Petitioner. Ms.P.H. Kantharia, GP a/w Ms.Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP and Mr.Himanshu Takke, AGP for State-Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶6

Ms.Aditi Phatak a/w Vijay S. i/b BLAC Co. for Respondent No.4. Mr.Joel Carlos for Respondent No.6.

¶7

CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶8

DATE : 29^th JANUARY, 2025.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

In this Petition, which is filed by way of Public Interest Litigation, the Petitioner interalia prays for a writ of certiorari seeking to set set and quash the impugned order dated 20/12/2017 passed by Respondent No.5 . The Petitioner, in addition, has sought a direction to take necessary steps on several complaints made by the Petitioner.

¶11

The Writ Petition was filed by the Petitioner as an aggrieved person. However, on 18/02/2022, the Petitioner sought liberty to reregister the Public Interest Litigation and he was permitted to do so subject to compliance of the Public Interest Litigation Rules.

¶12

1/2

¶13

(31)PIL85-2024.doc

¶14

On 16/02/2023 the Petitioner sought deletion of prayer clause (g) so that his Petition is entertained as a Public Interest Litigation as he prayed that the RBI had failed to take action against Respondent No.6, with regard to illegality committed. To test the bonafides of the Petitioner and as a security, he was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- within four weeks.

¶15

On 31/03/2023, the Court reduced the amount of deposit to Rs.3,00,000/- and the Petitioner has deposited the said amount to show his bonafides.

¶16

We have noticed that even though this Writ Petition has been filed as Public Interest Litigation, yet the averments made in the same show that the Petitioner is an aggrieved person.

¶17

In view of this fact, the learned counsel for the Petitioner seek liberty to file a fresh Petition, if so advised.

¶18

The Office is directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,00,000/deposited by the Petitioner before this Court.

¶19

In view of above said submission, Public Interest Litigation is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.

¶20

(BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶21

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶22

2/2

Abdul Samee Siddiqui v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Samee Siddiqui v. the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Janahakka Sanrakshan Andolan through S.B. Gangurde and R.H. Sonawane and S.R. Gajghat vs State of Maharashtra

Suhas Hari Pingle vs Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Shri. Nagnath Uddhav Kadam vs the State of Maharashtra through Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Textile and Co-Op. and Ors.

Sharad Ghodke vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Is Principal Sec. Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Chandrakant C Shah vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

Kailas Gajanan Somase and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Bhpuendra Govindrao Jadhav vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary and Others

Suhas Hari Pingle vs Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Perto India Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

J.B.Grain Dealer Association vs the Union of India

Shiv Shakti Welfare Association vs State of Maharashtra Th. Principal Secretary Maharashtra, Forest Dept and 5 Ors.

Ms Brinda Chugani vs P R Landmarks LLP

Ramesh Gangaprasad Gupta vs Manoj Gangaprasad Gupta

Ganesh Sawant vs Ketan Vinod Chhatpar