The court dismissed the writ petition on the counsel for respondent No. 4 raising a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of revision. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the alternate remedy.
Liberty granted to petitioner to avail alternate remedy if authority fails to consider time spent.
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 wp 1154.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1154 OF 2013
Chandrakant Kashinathappa Biradar and others .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri A. B. Kale, Advocate for Petitioners. Smt. Y. M. Kshirsagar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Ms. P. G. Sontakke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2013.
PER COURT :
. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 raises a preliminary objection that against the impugned order the revision is maintainable.
2 wp 1154.13
[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/Feb. 13
Chandrakant Kashinathappa Biradar and others
The State of Maharashtra and others
S. V. GANGAPURWALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
