While noting that adjudicating the petition would be academic given the non-disputed expiry of the respondents' term, the Single Judge disposed of the writ petition and left the question of law open.
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.
wp1869.11
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
_____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
WRIT PETITION NO.1869 OF 2011
MADANSING MOTISING PARDESHI VERSUS MAHENDRA PANDIT PATIL AND ORS
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Talhar Ajay G. AGP for Respondents: Mr.More Advocate for Respondents : Mr.N.B. Suryawanshi For R/ 4 and 8
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. Dated: July 09, 2012
Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that the period for which the respondents No1 to 3 were elected as member of the Gram Panchayat, is to expire in the month of July, 2012. It is also not in dispute that the disqualification, if any, to be incurred if this petition is allowed, would be only for the said period. In my opinion, adjudicating this writ petition any further would be only academic one. In that view of the matter, leaving the question of law open, the writ petition is disposed of.
(S.S. SHINDE, J.)
PLK/*
MADANSING MOTISING PARDESHI
MAHENDRA PANDIT PATIL
S.S. SHINDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
