Petitioner appeared via counsel and indicated that due to subsequent developments, no issue remained for consideration in the writ petition; the court therefore disposed of the matter.
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.
932 WRIT PETITION NO. 13402 OF 2017
SYED FAZALULLAH SYED AHMEDULLAH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. T.Y. Sayyed AGP for Respondents:Mr. S.B. Joshi
CORAM : R. M. BORDE & VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ. Date: November 22, 2017
PER COURT :-
1 Counsel appearing for petitioner, on instructions, states that
in view of subsequent developments, nothing survives for consideration in the instant petition.
( VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) ( R. M. BORDE, J. )
vbd
SYED FAZALULLAH SYED AHMEDULLAH
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
R. M. BORDE
VIBHA KANKANWADI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
