Petitioner did not appear despite earlier notice; petition dismissed for want of prosecution with rule discharged and interim relief vacated.
Petition dismissed; rule discharged; interim relief vacated.
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, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4852 OF 2001
Tajmohammad Iramuddin Sayyed
...Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and others
...Respondents
Shri D.G.Nagode, advocate for the petitioner Shri D.V.Tele, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2
CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ.
DATED : 6th October, 2010
PER COURT :
On earlier two occasions none appeared for the petitioner.
Today also none appeared for the petitioner.
We heard learned A.G.P. Shri D.V.Tele for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
2
Petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Rule discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No costs.
(SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (S.B.DESHMUKH, J.)
dbm/wp4852.01
Tajmohammad Iramuddin Sayyed
The State of Maharashtra
S.B.Deshmukh
Shrihari P. Davare
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court