This single-paragraph order dismissed a miscellaneous civil application filed by an applicant in person, holding it non-maintainable because the underlying PIL writ petition had already been disposed of by this Court, following the ratio of a Supreme Court precedent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
(Spl. - H.C.A.S. C.D., 78-e)
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PANAJI – GOA APPELLATE SIDE MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 97 OF 2005 IN PIL WRIT PETITION NO. 379 OF 2000
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Quorum appearances, Court's orders, or directions and Court's or Judge's Orders. Registrar's orders.
Applicant in person.
Mr. S. Vahidulla, Addl. Government Advocate for the respondents.
CORAM : A.P. LAVANDE & N.A. BRITTO, JJ.
DATE : 1st March, 2005.
P.C.
Heard the applicant who is present in person and Mr. Vehidulla, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondents. By this application, the applicant seeks several reliefs. PIL Writ Petition No.379/2000 was disposed of by this Court by Order dated 5.3.2001. The Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another ( (1987) 2 SCC
2
A.P. LAVANDE, J.
N.A. BRITTO,
ssm.
3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a miscellaneous application for fresh reliefs is maintainable after the underlying writ petition has already been disposed of by the same court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and anotherFollowed¶10
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another (1987) 2 SCC 179 · Who else cites this
Applicant
Respondents
A.P. Lavande
N.A. Britto
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
