The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227. The court dismissed it as a non-fit case, holding that since a similar petition by the petitioner and one by a respondent had previously been dismissed by a Division Bench, no extraordinary jurisdiction can be exercised.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3432 OF 1991
Purshottam Y. Rudraksha.. Petitioner
Versus
Managing Officer & Administrator
Ulhasnagar & Ors.
Mr.Rajesh Datar for petitioner
Ms.V.Mhaispurkar, A.G.P. for respondents.
CORAM :S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE:12th December 2007
P.C.
.In the light of the fact that this
petitioner had also filed a petition which was
dismissed by Division bench of this Court so also
2
petition filed by respondent No.6 having been
dismissed, this is not a fit case for exercising
equitable, extra ordinary and discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India. Petition accordingly is
dismissed.
(S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a Writ Petition is maintainable when a similar petition by the petitioner was previously dismissed and a petition by a respondent was also dismissed.
Purshottam Y. Rudraksha
Managing Officer & Administrator Ulhasnagar & Ors.
S.C.Dharmadhikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court