In a writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to consider specific applications regarding a declaration in the Government Gazette. The court held the petition was misconceived and dismissed it, refusing to grant the requested direction.
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.
24-WP.2325.2013.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2325 OF 2013
Shri. Suresh Maruti Pimplekar } Petitioner versus The Tahasildar Kurla and Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Ajit Kenjale for the Petitioner.
Ms. Geeta Shastri – Addl. Government Pleader with Mr. Amit Shastri – AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6.
Mr. Vijay D. Patil for Respondent No. 5.
CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATED :- FEBRUARY 12, 2016
P.C. :-
The Petitioner prays for a direction to consider some applications stated to have been made on 30th March, 2012.
Page 1 of 2
J.V.Salunke,PA
24-WP.2325.2013.doc
Gazette Notification and the legal consequences flowing therefrom. The declaration being valid and unchallenged, must bind the competent Court and it could not have ignored it.
(M.S.SONAK, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
Page 2 of 2
J.V.Salunke,PA
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should consider applications stated to have been made on 30th March 2012.
Shri. Suresh Maruti Pimplekar
The Tahasildar Kurla
Vijay D. Patil
S. C. DharmaDhikari
M. S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
