Dismissed
Saba Bin Hasan Hantosh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Bombay HCWP/9637/2014
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
sr. no. 9637.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
What the court decided
AI extract
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}
909 sr. no. 9637.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9637 OF 2014
SABA BIN HASAN HANTOSH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Kshirsagar Satish M And P. N. Kalani Mr. P. P. More, AGP for respondents.
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 20TH NOVEMBER, 2014.
PER COURT:
1] Civil suit filed by present petitioner is already admitted. Notice issued on 10.09.2004 is after injunction order dated 10.3.2014. Notice expressly mentions said order and points out more facts. In this situation, when, in the said notice Municipal Council has pointed out that it has purchased the land which was reserved in Town Planning, amount is already paid, all legal formalities have been fulfilled and it has cancelled NOC given to petitioner; we are not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. It is to be noted that petitioner has also not paid Show Tax from 2005-06 to 2013-14. The Municipal Council has pointed out that amount of Rs.251425/- is not paid by him despite repeated demands.
2] In this situation, writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
[A.M. BADAR] [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI] JUDGE JUDGE.
grt/-
SABA BIN HASAN HANTOSH
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
A.M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court