The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition seeking issuance of a Project Affected Person Certificate. The court held that the request which was made belatedly after about 35 years of the acquisition did not deserve consideration.
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.
( 1 ) wp3275.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3275 OF 2017
Kashinath Gopinath Sunepwad
..Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
..Respondents
Mr.A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.G. Karlekar, AGP for respondent/State.
CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :14.08.2017
P.C. :-
1.Heard. The application is made praying for
issuance of ‘Project Affected Person Certificate’
belatedly after about 35 years of the questioned
acquisition. No explanation is given by the petitioner
as regards the inordinate delay in praying for the
issuance of said certificate.
2.In view of the reasons recorded while deciding
Writ Petition No.6881 of 2011 decided on 20.01.2012 as
well as Writ Petition No. 2043 of 2016 decided on
( 2 ) wp3275.17
01.08.2016, the request made by the petitioner does not
deserve consideration.
3.The instant writ petition as such stands
rejected.
[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [R.M.BORDE,J.]
snk/2017/AUG17/ wp3275.17
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a belated application for issuance of Project Affected Person Certificate after a 35-year delay deserves consideration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition No.6881 of 2011Referred¶14
Writ Petition No.6881 of 2011
Writ Petition No. 2043 of 2016Referred¶15
Writ Petition No. 2043 of 2016
Kashinath Gopinath Sunepwad
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. Borde
S.M. Gavhane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court