The High Court of Bombay held that the issue in Writ Petition No. 4735 of 2013 is covered by a previous judgment (W.P. No. 4575 of 2012). The present petition was allowed on the same terms and rule was discharged.
Petition allowed on the terms of W.P. No. 4575 of 2012; rule discharged.
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 wp 4735.13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4735 OF 2013
Pravin S/o Jaysing Wankhede @ Thakur .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Shri Arun H. Koralkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. S. Patil, Addl.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI AND MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ. DATE : 28TH JULY, 2017.
PER COURT :
. It is stated that, the issue raised in this petition is covered by judgment and order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4575 of 2012 decided by this Court on 24th July, 2017. The writ petition therefore, is allowed on the very terms in which Writ Petition No. 4575 of 2012 stands allowed. No order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.
[MANGESH S. PATIL, J.] [S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]
bsb/July 17
Pravin S/o Jaysing Wankhede @ Thakur
The State of Maharashtra
S. C. Dharmadikari
Mangesh S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
