SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1999 Supreme(Pat) 560

R.M.PRASAD, J.N.DUBEY
Nilamber Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Judgment

1. Petitioners by way of Public interest Litigation have sought for appropriate writ, rule, order or direction commanding the respondent No. 1 to entrust the investigation into the allegations made against the respondent No. 10, Sulabh International, Patna and respondent No. 11, Bindeshwar Pathak, to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

2. Petitioners claim themselves to be social workers interested in the welfare of the public at large. According to them, a large scale bungling has been done by the respondent No. 10 with the aid and assistance of the other respondents. The further claim of the petitioners is that the State Government has granted approval for handing over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation but the respondent No. 1 is sitting tight over the matter with the result that no progress has been made in the matter so far. On the other hand, claim of the respondent No. 19 is that this writ petition is not maintainable as Public Interest Litigation as the petitioner No. 1 is Vice-President of Gramina Sauchalaya Sansthan, Patna, which is its competitor in the trade. It is further claimed that in view of growing popularity of the respondent No. 10













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top