The High Court held that the prayers in the connected Civil Application could not be considered as they overlapped with the scope of the writ petition. The application was disposed of with liberty to file appropriate proceedings.
Liberty granted to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
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
rsk
caw-2285-15.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION 2285 OF 2015 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5548 OF 2013
Pandurang Joti Adsule V/s. 1. The Collector & Ors.
...Applicant.
...Respondents.
Mr. Mayuresh Modgi for the Petitioner/applicant. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. A. V. Anturkar, Sr. Advocate a/w Mr. Sandeep Phatak i/b Mr. Sugandh B. Deshmukh for respondent No.3. Mr. Amit B. Borkar for respondent No.4. Mr. R. P. Pawar i/b Mr. S. S. Patwardhan for respondent No.5.
CORAM : A.S.OKA &
V.L. ACHLIYA,JJ.
DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2015
P.C.:
. Considering the scope of the writ petition, the prayers made in this Civil Application cannot be considered. We accordingly dispose of the application with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
(V. L. ACHLIYA, J.)
(A. S. OKA, J.)
C E R T I F I C A T E
“ Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment/Order.”
Pandurang Joti Adsule
The Collector
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3
Respondent No.4
Respondent No.5
A.S. Oka
V.L. Achliya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
