The petitioner stated that the writ petition is rendered infructuous due to the passage of time. The court disposed of the writ petition accordingly.
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.
wp310614.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3106 OF 2014
Janardhan s/o Mhatarba Aher
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr.K.N.Shermale, advocate for the petitioner Mr.M.M.Nerlikar, A.G.P. for Respondents.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 25th November, 2016
PER COURT:
Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that due to passage of time the petition is rendered infructuous.
Writ Petition, as such, stands disposed of.
SANGITRAO S. PATIL R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE
adb/wp310614
Janardhan s/o Mhatarba Aher
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. Borde
Sangitrao S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
