The High Court held that a challenge to an expired appointment of an administrative board does not merit consideration. It directed the respondents to hold elections expeditiously if not already done and disposed of the writ petition.
Petition dismissed; direction to hold elections expeditiously if not already done.
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.
wp406.12.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 406 OF 2012
Vishwambhar s/o Mohanrao Kande .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. S. S. Thombre, advocate for petitioner. Mrs. S. G. Chincholkar, AGP for the State.
=====
CORAM : R.M. BORDE & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2014.
PER COURT :
wp406.12.doc
2
disposed of.
dyb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging the appointment of an administrative board deserves consideration when the appointment has expired post-petition.
Vishwambhar s/o Mohanrao Kande
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. BORDE
V. L. ACHLIYA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
