The petitioner challenged the election. Upon the advice of counsel that subsequent elections made the challenge infructuous, the court disposed of the writ petition as infructuous.
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 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6492 OF 2010
Madhukar Amrutrao Jadhav PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS
Mr.R.J.Nirmal, Advocate for petitioner.
Mr.T.B.Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 to 27, 29 to 45, 47 to 78, 80, 81.
Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, AGP for respondent/State.
( CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &
RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, JJ. )
DATE : 19/10/2013
PER COURT :
(RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.) ( B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
khs/Oct. 2013/wp6492-10
Madhukar Amrutrao Jadhav
The State of Maharashtra
Ravindra V. Ghuge
B. P. Dharmadhikari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
