https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423647 In a genuine public interest litigation raising prima facie serious public wrong, procedural defects under the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 did not justify rejection at the threshold. The Court treated Rules 3, 4, 4-B and 5 as directory on the facts, noting disclosure of the petitioner's status, lack of personal interest, source of information, and prior efforts, and held that technical non-compliance could not outweigh materials showing possible public harm. Allegations of mala fides based on earlier litigation involving the petitioner's father were not accepted as a basis to reject the writ petitions. The plea of alternative criminal remedies under Sections 154, 154(3) and 156(3) CrPC was found inapplicable because the relief sought was independent investigation. en-us Fri, 03 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jun 2022 21:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423647 In a genuine public interest litigation raising prima facie serious public wrong, procedural defects under the Jharkhand High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010 did not justify rejection at the threshold. The Court treated Rules 3, 4, 4-B and 5 as directory on the facts, noting disclosure of the petitioner's status, lack of personal interest, source of information, and prior efforts, and held that technical non-compliance could not outweigh materials showing possible public harm. Allegations of mala fides based on earlier litigation involving the petitioner's father were not accepted as a basis to reject the writ petitions. The plea of alternative criminal remedies under Sections 154, 154(3) and 156(3) CrPC was found inapplicable because the relief sought was independent investigation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 03 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=423647