Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SANJAY MUSALE versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.

Decided
17 September 1998
Judges listed
A.S. ANAND, B.N. KIRPAL, V.N. KHARE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 646 · 1998 INSC 366

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Unnumbered paragraph

Delay condoned.

p. 646, margin E

Unnumbered paragraph

The writ petition filed in the High Court by the petitioner concealed material facts as is noticed in the impugned order. The petitioner appears to have filed the litigation for someone. There is no public interest involved in the petition. The High Court rightly found him to be a busy body and, in our opinion, such a meddlesome interloper cannot be permitted to maintain Public Interest Litigation Petition. The courts cannot allow their forum to be misused in the garb of "public interest". This special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed with Rs.5,000 as costs. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 646, margin E