In a second round of writ litigation, the High Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the Government's decision that norms under a 1995 Resolution were not fulfilled. Finding the submitted affidavits insufficient to establish punishable conduct or abuse, the court held there was no case for interference.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7066 OF 2013
ANNARAO MAROTIRAO DANDE VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Suryakant S. Pawar AGP for Respondent 1 : Shri S.K.Tambe Advocate for Respondents 2 & 3 : Shri Bhushan Kulkarni
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. Dated: September 27, 2013
PER COURT :-
akl
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
2
WRIT PETITION NO. 7066 OF 2013
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )
akl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the writ petition challenging the non-fulfillment of norms laid down in a Resolution is maintainable.
Whether the judgment requires interference given the affidavits submitted do not establish the necessary facts.
ANNARAO MAROTIRAO DANDE
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
