Single-paragraph order disposing a writ petition as infructuous due to passage of time and non-appearance, discharging the rule with no order as to 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.
WP3456-97
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 3456/1997
(SUBHASH RAMDAS LAD & OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS)
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATE : MAY 5, 2014.
None for the petitioner.
It appears on a reading of the petition and on a perusal of the prayer clauses that the cause for filing the writ petition has been rendered infructuous due to passage of time, more so as the interim relief was refused. That appears to be the reason for the non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioners.
The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
Subhash Ramdas Lad & Others
The State of Mah.
Vasanti A. Naik
A. S. Chandurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
