AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 178 wordsIt is submitted by Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that Mr. Harish Salve, learned senior counsel who had assured this Court to argue the matter today is busy before the International Court of Justice defending India and, therefore, the matter may be argued in his absence.
We accept the aforesaid submission. We permitted Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel who is supporting the cause of the petitioners to argue the matter. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned counsel assisted him and also participated in the course of arguments.
After Mr. Vishwanathan, learned senior counsel submitted his arguments, we are obliged to note that Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel had initially raised the issue of maintainability of the writ petition and, therefore, we permitted him to argue the same. He has commenced his arguments.
Let the matter be listed for further hearing at 10.30 a.m. on 16.5.2017.
WP (C) No. 347 of 2017
On being mentioned, the matter is taken on Board.
List the matter on 16.5.2017 along with SLP (C) No.804/2017.