The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging permission granted to another entity to conduct classes Standards V to VII, holding the petitioner had no vested right to a monopoly.
The writ petition was dismissed.
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.
wp5640-12.sxw
dmt 1/1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5640 OF 2012
Saryaseva Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Nigadi (Budruk).
..Petitioner.
versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
..Respondents.
Mr. Balwant Patole for the Petitioner.
Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP. for Respondent No. 1.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, AND
A.A. SAYED, JJ.
28 AUGUST 2012.
P.C. :
The Petition challenges the permission granted to the Sixth Respondent for conducting Classes from Standards V to VII. The Petitioner has no vested right to claim a monopoly for conducting classes. In the circumstances, the Petitioner does not have any actionable grievance. The Petition is dismissed.
(DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)
(A.A. SAYED, J.)
Saryaseva Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Nigadi (Budruk)
The State of Maharashtra
D.Y. Chandrachud
A.A. Sayed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
