The court allowed the civil application for service of notice. The applicant and their advocates noted that the writ petition was not yet admitted and that non-applicants retain the right to controvert amended averments. Notice was allowed.
Notice was allowed to be issued to the respondents.
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
CA2667.2016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2667 OF 2016
Baswaraj S/o Gundappa Vaijapure
… Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
… Respondents
Mr Ram S. Shinde (Borolkar), Advocate for the applicant Mr. Karlekar, AGP for respondent/State
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 4TH MARCH, 2016.
PER COURT:
[ A. M. BADAR, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
sgp
2 issues framed by the court
Whether notice should be issued to respondents given that the writ petition is not admitted.
Whether non-applicants have the right to controvert averments in an amended writ petition.
Baswaraj S/o Gundappa Vaijapure
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. GANGAPURWALA
A. M. BADAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
