The Bench found no disputed questions of fact in the writ petition. Consequently, the Court chose not to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and disposed of the petition.
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 BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 564 OF 2013
MR. ANTHONY ASSIS FERNANDES ... Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND 6 ORS., ... Respondents
Mr. C. Fonseca, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N. Pai, Additional Government Advocate holding for Ms. N. Kholkar, Additional Government Advocate for respondents no. 1,3,4,5,6. Mr. H. D. Naik, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr.Anthony Joe D'silva, Advocate for respondent no.7.
Coram:RANJIT MORE & U. V. BAKRE, JJ.
Date:6th August, 2014
P.C.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we find that no disputed questions of fact are involved in the present petition, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the petition in exercise of our jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition stands disposed of.
RANJIT MORE, J.
U. V. BAKRE, J.
vn
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the petition given the absence of disputed questions of fact under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MR. ANTHONY ASSIS FERNANDES
THE STATE OF GOA
RANJIT MORE
U. V. BAKRE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
