The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition, holding that no interference was required due to the availability of alternate remedies and the presence of disputed questions of fact already pursued in civil suits.
Writ petition stood disposed of.
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}
wp5882.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5882 OF 2017
Babarao Parasram Kandhare
& others Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents
Mr. P.P. Mandlik, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.B. Joshi, A.G.P. for all Respondents.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
K.L. WADANE, JJ. DATE : 2nd MAY, 2017
PER COURT:
wp5882.17.odt
( K. L. WADANE ) ( R.M.BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition requires interference given the availability of alternate remedies.
Whether disputed questions of fact preclude writ intervention.
Babarao Parasram Kandhare & others
The State of Maharashtra & others
R.M. Borde
K.L. Wadane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
