Three writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous because the underlying revision petitions before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) had already been disposed of on merits, rendering the interim orders ineffective.
Rule discharged; writ petitions dismissed as infructuous.
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.
DDR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 638 OF 2008
Shri James Avinash Holkar .. Petitioner
Vs.
The District Supply Officer, Kolhapur & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 661 OF 2008
Sou. Gokula Prakash Khot .. Petitioner Vs.
The District Supply Officer, Kolhapur & Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 663 OF 2008
The Ratnadeep Sahakari Grahak Sanstha Mydt. Danoli. .. Petitioner
Vs.
The District Supply Officer, Kolhapur & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Amit Borkar for the petitioner in all the petitions.
Mr. O.M. Kulkarni, AGP for the State/respondents No.1 to 5.
CORAM : M.S. KARNIK, J.
st NOVEMBER, 2017
1/2
ORDER :
Learned Counsel Shri Borkar for the petitioner states that
the revision filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Pune, is already disposed of on merits. The present petitions arise out of an interim order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) in the course of the Revision Petition. As the main matter has been decided
on merits, the present petitions are rendered infructuous and are accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
(M.S. KARNIK, J.)
2/2
Shri James Avinash Holkar
Sou. Gokula Prakash Khot
The Ratnadeep Sahakari Grahak Sanstha Mydt. Danoli.
The District Supply Officer, Kolhapur
M.S. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
