1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2989/2006 (Dayaram Maroti Kapgate vs. State of Maharashtra & Others) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... Mr. M V Samarth, Adv.for petitioner Mrs. Joshi, AGP for Respondents 1 to 5 Mr. Sachin Zoting, Adv.for R-6 CORAM: A .M.KHANWILKAR & R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. DATED: 25th April, 2008. *** 1. We are in agreement with the objection taken on behalf of Respondents that the petitioner has no locus to pursue this remedy. The petitioner is unable to point out as to how he is an affected person. Learned counsel for petitioner would, however, contend that petitioner has filed this petition in public interest. In the first place, as rightly contended by the counsel for respondents, the petitioner has not taken permission to pursue this petition as public interest, as is required under the extant Regulation. At this distance of time, the request of the petitioner to treat this proceeding as public interest litigation cannot be entertained as this Court has already issued notice on the petition, on the assumption that the petitioner is the affected person. Assuming that the petitioner was to be 2 permitted to pursue the remedy as public interest litigation, we are convinced that the impugned action taken by the authority against the individual (Institution), those persons are competent to pursue their own grievance if they are so advised. We see no reason why the petitioner should be permitted to espouse their cause though they are in position to take recourse to such remedy. 2. Taking any view of the matter, we see no reason to entertain this Petition. Dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare