The High Court at Aurangabad disposed of two writ petitions as withdrawn, noting that disputed questions of fact suggested the availability of alternate remedies.
Both writ petitions disposed of as withdrawn.
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.
wp7366.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7366 OF 2014
Smt. Neeta Navsagar Kale
Petitioner
Versus
the State of Maharashtra
& others
Respondents
Mr. S.R. Kolhare, advocate holding for Mr. P.S. Kochar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.B. Joshi, A.G.P. for Respondent no. 1.
Mr. Bondar, advocate for respondent no. 4.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 7368 OF 2014
Ramdas Shivaji Shinde
Petitioner
Versus
the State of Maharashtra & others Respondents
Mr. S.R. Kolhare, advocate holding for Mr. P.S. Kochar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.B. Joshi, A.G.P. for Respondent no. 1. Mr. D.S. Mali, advocate for respondent no. 4.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE & P. R. BORA, JJ. DATE : 20th MARCH, 2017
PER COURT:
Since the petitions involve disputed questions of fact, it would be open for the petitioners to avail of alternate remedies provided under law. Keeping the option to avail of alternate
wp7366.14.odt
remedies available in law, open for the petitioners, both the petitions stand disposed of as withdrawn.
( P. R. BORA ) ( R.M.BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
Smt. Neeta Navsagar Kale
the State of Maharashtra
Ramdas Shivaji Shinde
R.M. Borde
P. R. Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
