The High Court disposed of the writ petition, noting that the petition's purpose was fulfilled after the respondent counsel pointed out the petitioner's entitlement to inspect inquiry documents.
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.
hvn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITON NO. 9607 OF 2009
Tushar Maniklal Mantri
... Petitioner
Versus
The Disciplinary Authority and Anr.
... Respondents
Mr. S.G. Aney, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A.B. Mahajan for Petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Dani, Sr. Counsel for Respondents.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 25, 2009
P.C.
On behalf of the Respondents, the learned counsel points out that the Petitioner would be entitled to take inspection of the documents of the preliminary inquiry conducted by Mr. P.V. Patil, the Principle District Judge Nagpur and also that of the above numbered departmental inquiry. In view of the statement, nothing further survives in this petition which is accordingly disposed of.
(J.H. BHATIA, J.)
Tushar Maniklal Mantri
The Disciplinary Authority
F.I. REBELLO
J.H. BHATIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
