Respondents undertook to investigate the petitioner's complaint and pass orders. The court found nothing survived in the writ petition upon this undertaking and disposed of the matter without costs.
No order as to costs.
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
O. O. C. J.
WRIT PETITION (LODG.) NO.55 OF 2009
Bindu G. Rohira Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
Mr. A. Rane for the Petitioner. Mr. Mandar Goswami for Respondent No.1. Ms. A.R. Joshi for the BMC.
CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
4th March, 2009.
P.C. :
The contention raised is that vide Exhibit H complaint is made by the Petitioner, but no effective steps have been taken. Thus,
the Petitioner was compelled to file the present writ petition. Counsel appearing for the Corporation states that they will look into the grievance made by the Petitioner in the present writ petition and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the concerned parties expeditiously. The Respondents will abide by the statement.
In view of the statement made, nothing survives in the Petition. The
2
same is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
Bindu G. Rohira
State of Maharashtra
BMC
Swatanter Kumar
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
