In a writ petition for quashing an inquiry report, the Bombay High Court dismissed the matter as premature since no action had been taken based on the report. The court directed disposal while keeping the petitioner's legal remedies open.
Petition disposed of without entertaining the plea; option for other remedies kept open.
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.
956 WRIT PETITION NO. 11865 OF 2016
SUREKHA NAMDEO SHEWALE VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Gangakhedkar AGP for Respondents:Mr. A.A. Jagatkar
... CORAM : R. M. BORDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. Date: December 02, 2016
PER COURT :-
1 The petitioner is praying for quashment of the enquiry report, contending that, the same has been finalized, without extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is not a matter of dispute that consequent action based upon the impugned report has not yet been taken and as such, the contentions raised by the petitioner in respect of validity of the enquiry report need not be considered at this premature stage. The petition is, therefore, not liable to be entertained in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2 Keeping option of the petitioner to avail of remedies available in law, at an appropriate stage, open, writ petition is disposed of.
( SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J. ) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )
vbd
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaReferred¶8
SUREKHA NAMDEO SHEWALE
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
R. M. BORDE
SANGITRAO S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
