Petitioner challenged communication between Nagar Parishad and a construction firm. Court declined to entertain writ petition due to disputed questions of fact, keeping alternative remedies open.
Petition disposed of keeping other remedies available to the petitioner.
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.
23
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2290 OF 2015
JEEVAN VINAYAK JAHAGIRDAR VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr.Kiran Nagarkar h/f Borde Kishorkumar B AGP for Respondents: Mr.S.N.Morampalle Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr.R.N.Chavan h/f Mr.Vijay Sharma
CORAM : S.S.SHINDE & V.L.ACHLIYA,JJ. DATED : 14TH MARCH,2016
PER COURT : -
We are not inclined to entertain this petition. It raises disputed questions of fact. Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance upon communication between the Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Jamner and Darshan Construction of which petitioner is Proprietor. If the petitioner is well advised, he can seek appropriate remedy as available in law. Hence, Keeping open the remedy available to the petitioner, this Petition stands disposed of.
umg/
JEEVAN VINAYAK JAHAGIRDAR
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
S.S.SHINDE
V.L.ACHLIYA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
