Held that the writ petition is premature. The court kept the petitioner's legal avenue open pending any potential future prejudice and disposed of the petition without costs.
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 wp2167.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2167 OF 2013 Mr. Vinaykumar s/o Premratan Mundadha vs. Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Road Transport and National Highways, New Delhi and another
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders
Shri R.R.Vyas, counsel for the Petitioner.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 17th APRIL, 2013 .
Heard.
We find that the petition as filed is premature. If steps to the prejudice to the present petitioner are taken, he can always approach competent forum in accordance with law. Hence, keeping the said avenue open to him, we dispose of the present petition. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
!! BRW !!
...../-
Mr. Vinaykumar s/o Premratan Mundadha
Union of India
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
A.B. CHAUDHARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
