The petitions were disposed of as infructuous since the petitioner no longer has an active cause of action. The court granted liberty to challenge specific provisions of the A.P.M.C. Act in a future petition.
Liberty to challenge certain provisions of A.P.M.C. Act in future 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 JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 478 OF 2004
CHIMANRAO RUPCHAND PATIL
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHA & ORS
WITH WP/480/2004
WITH
CA/1293/2004 IN WP/480/2004
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Deelip Patil Bankar AGP for Respondents: Mr. U.S.Mote
CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ. Dated: January 15, 2015
PER COURT :-
( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. )
aaa/-
CHIMANRAO RUPCHAND PATIL
STATE OF MAHA
A.V. NIRGUDE
V.K. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
