Petitioner stated petition was infructuous due to passage of time. Writ petition dismissed as infructuous. No substantive legal principles or disposition were elaborated beyond this statement.
Petition dismissed as 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.
wp174512.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1745 OF 2012
Pravin s/o Dattatraya Thakur
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr.S.R.Barlinge, advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.S.Dande, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.P.S.Patil, advocate for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
A.I.S.CHEEMA, JJ. DATE : 05th January, 2016
PER COURT:
Learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that due to passage of time, petition is rendered infructuous.
Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed as infructuous.
A.I.S.CHEEMA
JUDGE
R.M.BORDE
JUDGE
adb/wp174512
Pravin s/o Dattatraya Thakur
The State of Maharashtra
R.M.BORDE
A.I.S.CHEEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
