Coram relied on a companion writ petition disposed of on the same day to dispose of these two petitions in similar terms due to factual similarity.
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.
WP449-18.1.sxw
PNP 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.449 OF 2011
Sameer Manohar Thakur
..Petitioner.
versus
The State of Maharashtra and others
..Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO.450 OF 2011
Anil Visharam Bhagat ..Petitioner. versus
The State of Maharashtra and others
..Respondents.
.....
Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Shinde, AGP for the Respondents.
......
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA , JJ.
18 January 2011.
P.C. :
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader are agreed in stating before the Court that the facts of this case are similar to those of Writ Petition 451 of 2011 which has been disposed of by an order passed today. For the reasons contained in the judgment of this Court in companion Writ Petition 451 of 2011, these Petitions shall stand disposed of in similar terms.
(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta, J.)
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition 451 of 2011Relied on¶20
Sameer Manohar Thakur
Anil Visharam Bhagat
The State of Maharashtra
Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
