The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution as the petitioner had not appeared and their term had expired.
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.
WP1934-01
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1934/2001
(UKANDA @ UKARDA YAMAJI GAVLI VERSUS DIVISIONAL CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, AMRAVATI & OTHERS)
Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, A.G.P. for the R-1 to 6. Shri N.R. Saboo, counsel for the R-7.
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND
A.M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 26, 2015.
None appeared for the petitioner on 20.03.2015. None appears for the petitioner, today also.
Since the term of the petitioner has expired, it appears that the petitioner must not be interested in prosecuting the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
JUDGE JUDGE
APTE
UKANDA @ UKARDA YAMAJI GAVLI
DIVISIONAL CASTE CERTIFICATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, AMRAVATI
VASANTI A. NAIK
A.M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
