Both petitioners and the State of Maharashtra agree. The High Court concludes. The judgment is short and provides a disposition.
The Writ Petition is disposed of keeping the option to avail of alternate remedy open to the petitioners.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5512 OF 2016
(Subhash Balaji Wani and another Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others)
Mr. B.V. Dhage, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, A.G.P. for the respondent/State
CORAM :R.M. BORDE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 15th December, 2016
PER COURT:
Heard.
2.In view of availability of alternate remedy for
redressal of the grievances of the petitioners, the
instant petition need not be entertained. Keeping the
option to avail of the alternate remedy open to the
petitioners, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
npj/wp5512-2016
Subhash Balaji Wani
another
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