In default of the petitioner's appearance in both morning and afternoon sessions, this court concluded that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the writ petition and dismissed the matter.
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.
21 wp 2328.17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2328 OF 2017
Vincent D'Souza …..Petitioner versus State Information Commissioner …..Respondent
None for the petitioner.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATE : 4th JUNE, 2018.
P. C. :
The petition was called out in the morning session, since none
appeared on behalf of the petitioner, it was kept back. When the petition was called out again in the afternoon session, nobody appeared
on behalf of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner is not interested
in prosecuting the matter. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in default.
[SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
Shubhada S Kadam 1/1
Vincent D'Souza
State Information Commissioner
RANJIT MORE
ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
