The Division Bench disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's case promptly on merits.
Respondent No.3 to consider petitioner's case on merits within six months.
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 AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
78 WRIT PETITION NO. 1123 OF 2016
SUDHA MEHERBABU SHRIRAMWAR
VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V.D. Gunale AGP for Respondents:Mr. A.S. Shinde
CORAM : R. M. BORDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. Date: November 21, 2016
PER COURT :-
1 The petitioner claims that, the facts giving rise to the instant petition are similar in all respects to the facts, giving rise to the Writ Petition No.2216 of 2013, decided by Division Bench of this Court on 16.9.2015. The instant petition also, therefore, deserves to be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the above referred writ petition.
2 In this view of the matter, we direct Respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of documents, which are submitted by respondent No.4 District Social Welfare Officer and after extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and on consideration of the documents, which would be placed on record by the petitioner, on its own merit and in accordance with the provisions of law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today and it is accordingly directed.
3 Writ petition stands disposed of.
( SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J. ) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )
vbd
SUDHA MEHERBABU SHRIRAMWAR
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
R. M. BORDE
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
