A writ petition was disposed of without examining the grievance under Article 226. The Court kept the petitioner's option to avail any alternate remedy open.
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.
52 sr. no. 2809.16 wp.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2809 OF 2016
SHANKAR JAKOJI SHIRSE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioners : Ms. Bharati B. Gunjal AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. S.P. Urgunde.
. . .
CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
DATE : 14TH SEPTEMBER, 2016.
PER COURT:
1] The grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant petition need not be examined in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Keeping the option of the petitioner to avail alternate remedy, if any, open, we dispose of the petition.
[K.K.SONAWANE] [R.M. BORDE] JUDGE JUDGE
grt/-
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shankar Jakoji Shirse and Others
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. Borde
K.K. Sonawane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
