The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Rajnish Shukla challenging the allotment of hewse operation and management work to Respondent No. 4, holding that the petitioner espoused no public cause and the petition had no substance.
Petition dismissed as it espoused no public cause and had no substance.
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
WPPIL No. 123 of 2020
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPPIL No. 123 of 2020
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondent
For Petitioner Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, Advocate For Respondent Mr. Sudeep Agarwal, Dy. AG
Proceedings through Video Conferencing
DB.: Hon'ble Mr. Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. C.J &
Hon'ble Mrs. Rajani Dubey, J.
Order on Board by Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. C.J.
2
WPPIL No. 123 of 2020
9/7/2021
However, the agreement executed between respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 allowed Tata Ace and MarutiEecoor vehicles for putting fabrication of the Hearse Unit, which is not permissible because Tata Ace and MarutiEcoor are commercial vehicles.
3
WPPIL No. 123 of 2020
Sd/- Sd/- ( Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Rajani Dubey) Acting Chief Justice Judge
Shyna
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a public interest litigation questioning the allotment of hewse operation and management work to respondent no 4 has substance
Whether the agreement allowing Tata Ace and Maruti Ecoor vehicles instead of Tata Venture is permissible under the request for proposal
Rajnish Shukla
State Of Chhattisgarh
Director, Directorate Of Health Services
Transport Commissioner
M/s. Community Action
Prashant Kumar Mishra
Rajani Dubey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
