The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed writ petitions, holding that the involvement of disputed questions of fact precludes exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
None; petitions were dismissed as disposed of facts.
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 442 OF 2012 with WRIT PETITION NO. 444 OF 2012
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders
1
Mrs. Ujjwala Agrawal, Advocate h/f. Mr. B.R. Waramma,Advocate for petitioner.
CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 20th JANUARY , 2012.
PER COURT :-
1] Petitions involve various disputed questions of fact, which cannot be gone into, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the petitions. Writ petitions are dismissed.
grt/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether disputed questions of fact can be examined under Article 226 jurisdiction?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Unknown Petitioner
Unknown Respondent
B.R. Gavai
M.T. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
