The Court, relying on a full bench decision in Anant H. Ulhalkar, held that no direction needed to be issued as requested. The writ petition was disposed of.
No direction to be issued as requested.
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.
916 WRIT PETITION NO. 12602 OF 2016
NANDA NAMDEV TIDAKE AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. M.P. Kale AGP for Respondents:Mr. Y.G. Gujrathi
... CORAM : R. M. BORDE & SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. Date: December 21, 2016
PER COURT :-
1 In view of the decision of the full bench at Mumbai in the matter of Anant H. Ulhalkar and another Versus Chief Election Commission and others (Writ Petition No.10748 of 2014 decided on 9.12.2016) , no direction, as requested, need be issued.
( SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J. ) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )
vbd
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a direction needs to be issued as requested by the petitioners in view of the full bench decision in Anant H. Ulhalkar.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anant H. Ulhalkar and another Versus Chief Election Commission and othersFollowed¶1
Anant H. Ulhalkar and another Versus Chief Election Commission and others (Writ Petition No.10748 of 2014 decided on 9.12.2016)
NANDA NAMDEV TIDAKE AND ANOTHER
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
