https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285002 Public interest litigation can relax locus standi where patent illegality affects the public, but it does not let the court assume executive functions. Judicial interference is warranted only on illegality, inaction, or infringement of legal, constitutional, or human rights. Because the proposed liquor shop had not yet been set up and was required to comply with Rule 113(2) of the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1970, and because no breach of statutory rules or binding precedent was shown, there was no basis for restraint or interference. en-us Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Dec 2019 18:14:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285002 Public interest litigation can relax locus standi where patent illegality affects the public, but it does not let the court assume executive functions. Judicial interference is warranted only on illegality, inaction, or infringement of legal, constitutional, or human rights. Because the proposed liquor shop had not yet been set up and was required to comply with Rule 113(2) of the Pondicherry Excise Rules, 1970, and because no breach of statutory rules or binding precedent was shown, there was no basis for restraint or interference. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285002