Disallowed a fresh writ petition filed after the dismissal of an earlier petition on the same subject-matter for non-prosecution, citing Supreme Court precedent. Held it was not a fit case to exercise discretion.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8287 OF 2007
Madhukar Dattatraya Chaudhary ...Petitioner
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors.
...Respondents
Mr. U.P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner
Mr. C.R. Sonawane, Assistant Government Pleader, for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: J.N. PATEL AND
SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 7, 2007
P.C .:-
earlier petition on the same subject-matter, i.e., Writ Petition No. 612 of 2001, came to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Not only this, an application in the said petition for restoration, which was filed after 7 years, also came to be dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 30th March, 2007. We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain a fresh petition on the
1
same subject-matter, particularly in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Anr. v. Labh Chand [(1993) 2 S.C.C. 495].
counsel for the petitioner to persuade us to entertain the petition by canvassing that it lies within the discretion of this Court. Even if we accept this proposition, we find that it is not a fit case that this Court should use its discretion.
that in case the petitioner has any other remedy available under
law, he may avail of it.
J.N. PATEL, J.
SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a fresh writ petition should be entertained after an earlier petition on the same subject-matter was dismissed for non-prosecution and restoration was also dismissed.
Whether this Court should exercise its discretion to entertain a successive petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of U.P. & Anr. v. Labh Chand [(1993) 2 S.C.C. 495]Applied¶15
Madhukar Dattatraya Chaudhary
State of Maharashtra
J.N. PATEL
NISHITA MHATRE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
