Petitioner sought enforcement of a Grievance Committee decision in a writ petition. Respondent no.2 confirmed implementation and grant of benefits. Court found no question for adjudication and disposed of the petition.
Petition disposed with no order as to costs; grievance committee decision confirmed as implemented.
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 3196/12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3196/2012
Ramesh Madhav Kanole.
...Petitioner..
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others.
...Respondents...
.....
Shri S.R. Choukidar, Advocate for petitioner.
Smt.M.A. Deshpande, AGP for respondent no.1.
Shri V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondent no.2.
Shri V.P. Golewar, Advocate for respondent nos.3 & 4.
.....
CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE: 23.06.2014
ORDER :
1]The petitioner vide the present writ petition seeks
implementation of the decision of the Grievance Committee
dated 30.9.2011.
2]Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, on
instructions, makes the statement that the decision of
the Grievance Committee is implemented and the petitioner
has been given the benefits as per the decision of the
WP 3196/12
Grievance Committee.
3]In view of the said statement, nothing survives for
adjudication in the present writ petition. The writ
petition accordingly is disposed of. No order as to
costs.
ndk/ c2361450.doc
Ramesh Madhav Kanole
The State of Maharashtra
S.V. Gangapurwala
A.M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court