The Writ Petitions were disposed of by rejecting petitions for urgent remarks/orders due to lack of board presence. Liberty was granted to file appropriate applications thereafter.
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.
wp13487.16gp.sxw
ssm 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13487 OF 2016
Mahendra A. Shah
….Petitioner.
Vs.
District Magistrate & Ors. ….Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 13488 OF 2016
Rajendra P. Chavan ….Petitioner. Vs. District Magistrate & Ors. ….Respondents.
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 13489 OF 2016
Arvind Shah
….Petitioner.
Vs.
District Magistrate & Ors. ….Respondents.
Mr. V.N. Bolinjkar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
A.S. GADKARI, JJ. DATE : 20 DECEMBER 2016.
ORDER:-
Not on board. Mentioned vide preacipes dated 20 December 2016.
1/2
ssm 2 wp13487.16gp.sxw
2 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners.
As the urgency is expressed for speaking to minutes, in respect of order dated 13 December 2016, we are rejecting all these preacipes, with liberty to the respective Petitioners to take out appropriate applications by placing the documents and material, if any, with due notice to the other side.
3 Preacipes dated 20 December 2016, are accordingly disposed of, with liberty.
(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
2/2
Mahendra A. Shah
Rajendra P. Chavan
Arvind Shah
District Magistrate & Ors.
ANOOP V. MOHTA
A.S. GADKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
