Petitioner's writ petition was disposed of as the relief claimed no longer survived due to the passage of time. The rule was discharged.
Rule discharged and writ petition disposed of.
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.
1 wp 1832.07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1832 OF 2007
Vijany S/o Gendmal Banthiya .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri A. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. M. Ganachari, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 06TH JUNE, 2016.
PER COURT :
. Heard Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Shelke, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned A. G. P. for the respondent/State.
[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
bsb/June 16
Vijany
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. Gangapurwala
K. K. Sonawane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
