The petitions were disposed of as the counsel admitted inability to contact petitioners and lack of instructions.
No relief was granted in view of the petitions being disposed of due to lack of instructions from absent petitioners.
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
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.852 OF 1998
1.S.V.Jadhav & ors....Petitioners
vs.
1.Coastal Engineer & ors....Respondents.
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.853 OF 1998
1.P.P.Sapale & ors....Petitioners
vs.
1.The Superintendent Engineer & Anr....Respondents.
Mr.Vijay Killedar i/b. Mr.Nitin Jamdar, for
Petitioners.
CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &
R.G.KETKAR, JJ.
DATED: 10th August,2009.
2
P.C.:-
The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners
states that he is trying to contact the petitioners
but he does not know their whereabouts and he is not
able to contact them and he does not have any
instructions from the petitioners. The statement is
accepted. In view of this statement, the petitions are
disposed of.
S.V.Jadhav & ors.
Coastal Engineer & ors.
P.P.Sapale & ors.
The Superintendent Engineer & Anr.
D.K.Deshmukh
R.G.Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court