Dismissed

Bhanudas Tukaram Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC10 Feb 2017RA/241/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, rejected a review application filed by an applicant challenging a Writ Petition decision. The court held that a cited judgment was not available during the original hearing and prior Government Resolutions were already considered, finding no error apparent on the face of the record.

What did the court decide?

The Review Application is rejected and stands dismissed.

Bhanudas Tukaram Kharat Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

ra241.16

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.241 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.11622 OF 2015

¶6

Bhanudas s/o Tukaram Kharat

¶7

...APPLICANT

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra
and another.

¶10

...RESPONDENTS

¶11

...

¶12

 Mr.Nitin S. Kadarale Advocate for Applicant.
 Mr.S.G. Karlekar, A.G.P. for Resp. No.1.

¶13

...

¶14

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
 DATE : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2017

¶15

ORDER :

¶16

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶17

Applicant. He submits that while hearing the Writ

¶18

Petition, Judgment of the Division Bench of the

¶19

Bombay High Court, Bench at Nagpur in the case of

¶20

ra241.16

¶21

¶22

Samadhan Rajaram Umak vs. Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh

¶23

Krishi Vidyapeeth and anther1 was not considered.
He further submits that the Government Resolution
issued by the General Administration Department
dated 29th July 1993 was not considered by this
Court while hearing the Writ Petition. Therefore,
he submits that Review Application deserves
consideration.

¶24

2.We have heard learned counsel appearing
for the Applicant at length and with his able
assistance perused the grounds taken in the Review
Application and also the annexures thereto. In
respect of the Judgment in the case of Samadhan

¶25

Rajaram Umak vs. Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Krishi
Vidyapeeth and anther, cited supra, since the same

¶26

was not brought to the notice of this Court while
hearing the Writ Petition, there was no question
of considering the said Judgment. So far as the
Government Resolution is concerned, this Court not

¶27

12011(5) ALL M.R. 267

¶28

ra241.16

¶29

¶30

only considered the subsequent Government
Resolution issued in the year 2002 but also
considered the relevant rules. Therefore, we do
not find any reason to review the order under
Review. There is no error apparent on the face of
record. Hence the Review Application stands
rejected.

¶31

[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]
asb/FEB17

Bhanudas Tukaram Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanudas Tukaram Kharat v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Vithal Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dnyandev Gopinath Pawar C.NO.8267 Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradip @ Bablu (Babali) S/O Trimbakrao Munde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Other

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs S Prabhakar

The Chief Executive Officer Zp Beed Vs Balaji Vithalrao Savalkar and Others

The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs Jai Malhar Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Nanded through Its Secretary G D Suryawanshi and Others