SURENDRA RAMCHANDRA JICHKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of the parties.

(2.) AT the outset, it is not in dispute that the Writ Petition No. 813/02 which was filed by the respondent No. 4 herein was a public interest litigation propogating the public cause on behalf of Depty Signal Mahila Mandal, Nagpur. In the writ petition, the petitioner wanted to canvas that in view of the location of the liquor shop of the appellant, there is a problem created for the residents of that locality and with a view to overcome the problem faced by the residents of the locality, the respondent No. 4 filed a Writ Petition No. 813/03 in the public interest. The observations in paragraph 14 of the impugned order by the learned Single Judge clearly demonstrate that the writ petition was in public interest and the learned Single Judge has entertained the same as public interest litigation.

(3.) ON the backdrop of these undisputed facts, it is absolutely clear to us that the Writ Petition No. 813 /02 was a public interest litigation. At this stage, it will be appropriate for us to consider the provisions of Clause 2-A of Chapter IV of the bombay High Court (Appellate Side) Rules, 1960 which reads thus :