In a civil application arising from a writ petition regarding admission, this court held that the application warrants not reconsidering the impugned order under review. Consequently, the relief prayed for was denied resulting in the rejection of the application.
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.
13011.17CA.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13011 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 3910 OF 2016
Savita W/o Arun Rathod
..APPLICANT
VERSUS
Sunil S/o Digambar Chavan
and others.
..RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. G.J. Pahilwan, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. V.M. Kagne, AGP for Respondent/State
Advocate for respondent no.1:Mr. S.N. Lale Yelwatkar
...
CORAM: S.S.SHINDE &
V.K. JADHAV,JJ.
DATE : 10TH NOVEMBER, 2017
ORAL ORDER :
We have heard the learned counsel
appearing for the applicant. Perused the
grounds set out in the application and the
order under review.
2.Upon careful perusal of the grounds
taken in the application, we are of the
13011.17CA.odt
2
opinion that, none of the grounds give rise
so as to review the order under review. There
is no error apparent on the face of record to
review the order under review. In that view
of the matter, we are unable to persuade
ourselves to grant any relief in favour of
the applicant. Hence the application stands
rejected.
3.Needless to observe that, if the
Education Officer has passed the order
pursuant to the directions issued by this
Court on 21st April, 2016 by order under
review, it is open for the aggrieved party to
take exception to such order.
SGA
Savita W/o Arun Rathod
Sunil S/o Digambar Chavan
S.S. Shinde
V.K. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court