This single-paragraph order holds that the petition involves disputed questions of fact and law requiring evidence, making it unsuitable for adjudication in writ proceedings. The petition is rejected, directing the petitioner to pursue ordinary remedies.
Petition rejected; petitioner relegated to ordinary legal remedy.
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.
914-WP-1795.15
BDPSPS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1795 OF 2015
Tarla Ramdas Sampat
…. Petitioner.
V/s
The Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Others …. Respondents.
Mr. Bipin Jayantilal Joshi a/w Mr. Prayag Joshi for the Petitioner. Ms. K.H. Mastakar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – MCGM Ms. Deepa Pohuja i/b Mr. Vicky Pohuja for Respondent No.3. Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w Ms. Pratibha Kuprewar i/b Mr. V.N. Pohuja for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6.
CORAM: B. R. GAVAI & M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE: 28th September, 2017
P.C.:-
1] Petition involves various disputed questions of facts and law, which require adjudication of evidence for deciding the issues involved.
2] Petition is therefore rejected, relegating the Petitioners to the ordinary remedy available to her in law.
(M. S. KARNIK, J. ) (B. R. GAVAI, J. )
1/1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and law.
Tarla Ramdas Sampat
The Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Others
B. R. Gavai
M. S. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
