In Writ Petition No.569 of 2005, the petitioner challenged orders of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The court found the petition to have no substance following a prior rejected petition and a review on medical fitness, and dismissed the petition on 25th November 2005.
The writ petition was dismissed with no orders revived.
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.
AJN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.569 OF 2005
Abdul Quadir Ansari ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents
Mr. L.K. Tripathi for the petitioner.
Mr. Milind More, A.G.P. for the respondents.
CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI &
ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.
DATED: 25TH NOVEMBER 2005.
P.C. :-
| 3. | The | petitioner | has | e | arlie | r | filed | Writ Petition |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No.1555 | of | 2000 in this |
court, | wh | ich | was | rejected when it |
|
| was | pointed | out to |
the | court | that | the | Review Committee |
|
| had | consi | dered the A. |
C.Rs. | in | res | pect | of the petitioner |
|
| for | the | last 28 years |
an | d foun |
d | that | he | is below average |
| for | more | than 10 |
years | and, | in | fact, |
in | one of the |
| A.C.Rs., | he | was held |
to | be a |
100% | liab | ility. It appears |
|
| that | the | review applic |
ation | filed | by | the | petitioner was |
: 2 :
also rejected. There is no substance in the petition.
The petition is dismissed.
(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)
(ABHAY S. OKA, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to succeed in his second writ petition challenging the Administrative Tribunal's review order.
Abdul Quadir Ansari
The State of Maharashtra
Ranjana Desai
Abhay S. Oka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
