Petitioner challenging non-decision on parole extension applications found infructuous as authorities had already granted the requested extensions in 2010 and 2012. Rule discharged.
Rule discharged; petition deemed infructuous.
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.
905_wp_170_2014.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.170 OF 2014
Pandurang Shridhas Vadane ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent
Mr. Sachin Chandan, Advocate appointed for the Petitioner. Mrs. S.D. Shinde, A.P.P. for the Respondent -State.
CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI & SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
DATE: 5th May, 2016.
ORAL ORDER [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :-
Rule. By consent rule is made returnable forthwith.
Megha
1/3
905_wp_170_2014.doc
Megha
2/3
905_wp_170_2014.doc
extended for thirty days from 9.2.2012. The orders showing that the second application of the petitioner on both the occasions was granted are taken on record and marked 'x' collectively for identification.
(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.)
Megha
3/3
Pandurang Shridhas Vadane
The State of Maharashtra
V.K. Tahilramani
Anuja PrabhuDESSai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
