JAWARCHAND POONAMCHAND DASSAJI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EMBROILED, the petitioners, acting pro bono publico, have filed these four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation for final and interim reliefs Ex voto. It is apt to notice factual foundation and reliefs petition wise.

(2.) WE have heard the petitioner and Shri Surjeet Singh, learned Government Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in Writ Petition No. 1269 of 1995; Shri M. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S. J. Dhanji, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Surjeet Singh, learned Government Advocate for respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 1641 of 1995; Shri G. K. Patidar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B. G. Nema, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 805 of 1996; and Shri M. K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Surjeet Singh, learned Government Advocate for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 on question of admission and interim reliefs as claimed on 4-7-1996 with specific emphasis on tenability or otherwise.

(3.) THESE petitions bear the insignia of Public Interest Litigation. Right at the threshold, it is apt to observe that the calendar of the Court is quite congested and this state of affair is further worsened by the inundation of such petitions. Attention can easily be focused on flux.