The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition, holding that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy under the Right to Information Act and thus the petition is rejected.
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.
drp
{1}
W.P.No.9397/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION.9397 OF 2011
Parawez Nazir Hussain Jafri
PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others
RESPONDENTS
Mr.B.A.Dhengle, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.G.Nandedkar, AGP for respondent State
[CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, AND
A.V.POTDAR, J.J.]
DATE : 17th December 2011
PER COURT:
[A.V.POTDAR, J.] [B.R.GAVAI, J.]
drp/B11/wp9397-11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the court should entertain the writ petition when the petitioner has an efficacious remedy under the Right to Information Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Parawez Nazir Hussain Jafri
The State of Maharashtra
B.R.GAVAI
A.V.POTDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
