Partly allowed

Deepika Subhash More v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Aug 2007RPW/119/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition against an order in a writ petition regarding area restrictions for the Thakur community, the Full Bench distinguished and reshaped a specific observation concerning migration requirements to avoid conflict with earlier precedent.

What did the court decide?

Sentence in para 5 of the order dated 22nd March 2007 requiring proof of post-restriction migration was dropped; Review Petition allowed to that extent.

Deepika Subhash More Vs State of Maharashtra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 (-1-)

¶2

MGN

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

 APPELLATE SIDE,CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

 REVIEW PETITION ST. NO.9985 OF 2007

¶6

IN

¶7

 WRIT PETITION NO.1953 OF 2007

¶8

 Deepika Subhash More ..Petitioner

¶9

 Versus

¶10

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors..Respondents

¶11

 Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.K.
 Mendadkar, for the Petitioner
 Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶12

CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
DATED: 8TH AUGUST, 2007

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

 . This Review Petition is preferred against

¶15

 the order dated 22nd March, 2007. The Review

¶16

 Applicant does not challenge in the present Review
 Petition the correctness of the judgment. However,
 it is contended that some observations in para.5
 would go contrary to the judgments of the other
 Division Bench in the matter of Pandurang Rangnath
 Chavan vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 1998 (2)
 Mh. L.J.806.

¶17

 2. Without going into the issue as to whether

¶18

 the judgment would run contrary to what is set out
 in Pandurang Rangnath Chavan (Supra) we find that
 some observation in para.5 needs to be reconsidered

¶19

 (-2-)

¶20

 considering the far-reaching consequences that may
 arise. In the light of that from paragraph 5 of the
 order dated 22nd March, 2007 drop the following

¶21

 sentence:-

¶22

 "The removal of area restrictions meant that
 the persons coming from Thakur community
 would have to establish that they or their
 predecessors have migrated from a schedule
 area after the removal of the area

¶23

 restrictions."

¶24

 . Review to that extent allowed. Review

¶25

 Petition disposed of accordingly.

¶26

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)

Deepika Subhash More v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepika Subhash More v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Nair Vs S.K.Tiwari and Ors.

The Commissioner of Commissioner of Income-Tax, 3,MUMBAI. Vs M/S Yerrowda Investments Ltd.

Commissioner of Income TAX-3 Mumbai Vs M/S. R.R. Investments and Estate Ltd.

Prakash Mohanrao Jadhav and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Deepika Subhash More Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Videocon Industries Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.