Writ petition challenging administrative order granting adjournment with specific condition was dismissed. Court held it was not inclined to entertain the petition after seven months lapse.
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
W.P.No.3222/12
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3222 OF 2012,
Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for the petitioner.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.
Date : 03.05.2012.
PER COURT :
Court while granting adjournment could not have put such a condition against the petitioner. The Court has no jurisdiction to impose such condition. According to the learned counsel, a reasonable request was made seeking adjournment, that was the first date when the petitioner appeared through lawyer and sought adjournment to file Written Statement. No directions could have been imposed upon the petitioners from implementing and executing the Resolution of enrollment of new members.
" Adjournment stands granted subject to not to implement and execute the resolution of enrollment of one admission of new
2
W.P.No.3222/12
members till filing written statement."
Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
Dt.03.05.2012. asp/office/wp3222.12
3
W.P.No.3222/12
Mr. Hon
unknown
S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court