The court held that the petitioner's request for relief seeking permission to work as Sarpanch is barred by constructive res-judicata as that relief should have been claimed in the previously disposed petition.
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.2659 OF 2009
------------------------------------:----------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : Court’s or Judge’s orders.
coram, appearances, Court’s orders :
or directions and Registrar’s :
orders. :
------------------------------------:-----------------------------------
Mr R.K.Mendadkar, for the petitioner.
Mr Pradip Patil, AGP, for the
respondent.
CORAM: S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE,JJ.
DATED: 17.03.2009.
P.C.:
Heard.
The earlier writ petition no.35 of 2009
has been disposed of by this Court by an
order dated 9.1.2009. Appropriate
directions have been given in the said
petition and the elections are stayed till
disposal of the appeal filed by the
petitioner. Now, the petitioner desires
direction from this court that he may be
allowed to work as Sarpanch. However, such
a relief cannot be granted in this petition.
The petitioner should have claimed such
relief in the earlier petition. By
constructive res-judicata, the present
petition is barred. The petition is
rejected.
(D.B.BHOSALE,J.) (S.B.MHASE,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can seek relief to be allowed to work as Sarpanch in the present petition considering the earlier petition was disposed of.
Petitioner
Respondent
S.B.Mhase
D.B.Bhosale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court