The petitioner challenged an order by SRA before the High Power Committee complaining non-continuation of status quo. The Court held it was not inclined to entertain the writ as the matter was seized by the Committee and disposed off.
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.
WP. 2678-13
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 2678 OF 2013
Abdul Karim Abdullah ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar i/b Omar Khaiyam Shaikh, for the Petitioner.
Mr. D. A. Nalawade, Govt. Pleader for Respondent No. 1. Mr. J. G. Reddy, for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. P. K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Counsel i/b Divekar Bhagwat & Co. for Respondent No. 5.
CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & A. K. MENON, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 1, 2014
PC.
1 / 2
WP. 2678-13
continuation of interim order passed by the SRA. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of High Power Committee (Respondent No. 2) submitted that no application for interim relief was made by the Petitioner.
Vinayak Halemath
2 / 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when the matter is already pendente with the High Power Committee.
Whether the impugned order granting status quo by SRA requires continuation by the High Power Committee without an interim application.
Abdul Karim Abdullah
The State of Maharashtra
High Power Committee
Respondent No. 3
V. M. Kanade
A. K. Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
