In a briefly reasoned order, the High Court of Bombay at Bombay disposed of a public interest litigation without citing legal provisions or precedents.
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
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 88 OF 2007
IN
P.I.L. NO. 3 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra
& Ors. .. Petitioners.
vs.
Anant Hari Padhye Gurjar
& Anr. .. Respondents.
Mr. P.M. Patil for Petitioners.
None for Respondents.
CORAM: J.N. PATEL, &
R.M. SAVANT, JJ.
DATE: 4TH FEBRUARY, 2009.
P.C.
. In view of the fact that the ad-interim order
passed by this court came to be confirmed at the time
of admission of the petition on 14.1.2004, it will not
be proper to vacate the interim order. But,
considering the grievance made by the State relating to
loss of revenue the hearing of the petition is
expedited.
2
2. The civil application stands disposed of
accordingly.
(J.N. Patel, J.)
(R.M. Savant, J.)
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Anant Hari Padhye Gurjar & Anr.
J.N. Patel
R.M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court