https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197383 A public-interest litigant could not maintain writ petitions seeking relief primarily for the benefit of a Judge facing removal proceedings when the Judge was not impleaded and had not sought the relief himself. The Court held that a directly affected person must ordinarily pursue such relief, and third-party petitions to confer that benefit were impermissible. It also held that a concluded Constitution Bench ruling could not be reopened through these petitions merely to reargue the same subject matter, absent compelling grounds for reconsideration. The petitions were therefore rejected at the threshold on maintainability and locus grounds. en-us Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Feb 2019 13:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197383 A public-interest litigant could not maintain writ petitions seeking relief primarily for the benefit of a Judge facing removal proceedings when the Judge was not impleaded and had not sought the relief himself. The Court held that a directly affected person must ordinarily pursue such relief, and third-party petitions to confer that benefit were impermissible. It also held that a concluded Constitution Bench ruling could not be reopened through these petitions merely to reargue the same subject matter, absent compelling grounds for reconsideration. The petitions were therefore rejected at the threshold on maintainability and locus grounds. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197383