Disposed

Shah Ayyaz Ali Hamid Ali v. the Divisonal Caste Scrutiny Committee No 2 Akola Thr Its President, Collector Office Premises

Bombay HC22 Aug 2012CAW/3192/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recalled an order imposing costs on the respondent in a civil application, allowed multiple civil applications, and disposed of a writ petition regarding caste scrutiny proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Recall of order imposing costs on respondent; civil applications allowed and disposed of.

What the court decided

Shah Ayyaz Ali Hamid Ali Vs the Divisonal Caste… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP6040-11

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6040/2011

¶5

(SHAH AYYAZ ALI HAMID ALI VERSUS THE DIVISIONAL CASTE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE & OTHERS)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Shri S.S. Dhengale, counsel for the petitioner.

¶11

Shri A.M. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the R-1.

¶12

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 22, 2012 .

¶13

Heard.

¶14

RULE .

¶15

rule made returnable early.

¶16

Learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri A.M. Deshpande, waives notice of hearing on behalf of respondent no.1.

¶17

Since the petitioner has made out a prima-facie case, the interim order granted on 08.12.2011 to continue during the pendency of the writ petition.

¶18

C.A.W. NO.1258/2012 .

¶19

Heard. Perused the contents of the application.

¶20

Also perused the order sheet.

¶21

It appears that on 23.02.2012, the counsel for the petitioner had asked for an adjournment. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 23.02.2012, the State had asked for adjournment for filing reply. It appears that on the first

¶22

2 WP6040-11

¶23

request by the State, time was granted, as a last chance. In this view of the matter, it would be necessary to recall the order dated 16.03.2012 imposing costs of Rs.2,500/- on the respondent no.1-Committee. Hence, the prayer made in the civil application is granted. The order dated 16.03.2012 stands recalled.

¶24

The civil application is allowed and disposed of.

¶25

C.A.W. NO. 573/2012 .

¶26

Heard. Perused the contents of the application.

¶27

Since the document, which is sought to be produced on record was a part of the documents before the Scrutiny Committee, the prayer made in the civil application is granted. The civil application is allowed and disposed of.

¶28

C.A.W. NO. 3192/2011 .

¶29

Heard.

¶30

The prayer made in this civil application is granted at this stage. The petitioner would be liable to furnish the true translation, if desired by the Court.

¶31

The civil application is allowed and disposed of.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

APTE

Shah Ayyaz Ali Hamid Ali v. the Divisonal Caste Scrutiny Committee No 2 Akola Thr Its President, Collector Office Premises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Shah Ayyaz Ali Hamid Ali v. the Divisonal Caste Scrutiny Committee No 2 Akola Thr Its President, Collector Office Premises

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Fulchand S/O Babulal Kurmawanshi Vs the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Karanja Lad and 2 Others

M/S. Ashoka Safe Deposit Vaulet Company, Vs Adminstrator, Samta Shahakar and 6 Ors.

Dasharath Pandu Rathod Vs State of Mah. Thr. the Addl. Collector Buldhana and 2 Others

Gramdarshan Shikshan Mandal Thr. Its Secty. Pt Dhok Vs the Asst. Charity Commissioner, Chandrapur and Ors.

Bank of India Thr. Its Asst. Manager Vs Ravi Mulchand Rajsevati and Anr.

Giridhar Gopal Suryawanshi and Ors. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Collector and Anr.