Dismissal of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for want of prosecution due to the absence of the petitioner on two occasions.
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
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.__________
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGBAD.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5358 OF 2010
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of |
Coram, appearances, Court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar/s orders | and Registrar’s orders |
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for the State. Mr. S.S.Mundhe, advocate holding for Mr S.P. Brahme, adv for respondent no. 3.
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI &
R.M. BORDE, JJ.
DATE : 8th DECEMBER, 2010.
. The petition is called out twice. None appears for the petitioner. Petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
( R.M. BORDE) JUDGE
( B.R. GAVAI)
JUDGE
dyb
B.R. Gavai
R.M. Borge
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
