In a motion for speaking to minutes, the court corrected an erratum in the order dated 5th October 2012, directing that Respondent No.2, not Respondent No.3, be directed to comply with the writ.
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. 5501 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Writ Petition No.5501 of 2012
Sirhan Bin Faisal Bin Maazi. .. Petitioner.
Versus The Union of India And Others. .. Respondents.
Shri. Hemant Surve, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri. Alok Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General, for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATE: 29th OCTOBER 2012
:SPEAKING TO MINUTES:
2 W.P. 5501 of 2012
motion is disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/- (A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.)
rsl
Sirhan Bin Faisal Bin Maazi
The Union of India
A.B. CHAUDHARI
NARESH H PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
