The petitioners' counsel stated the writ petition was rendered infructuous due to subsequent events. The court accepted this statement and disposed of the petition without further observation.
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.
14 wp 3073.17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3073 OF 2017
Mr. Namdev Chhakdu Gajbhare and ors. versus The State of Maharashtra and ors.
…..Petitioners
…..Respondents
Mr. B. S. Shinde i/b. Mr. Vaibhav Ugle, advocate for the petitioners. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the State.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.SADHANA JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2018.
P. C. :
Mr. Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, makes a statement that the petition is rendered infructuous in view of the events subsequent to the filing of the same. The statement is
accepted. In the light of the statement, the petition is disposed of.
(SMT. SADHANA JADHAV, J.) [RANJIT MORE, J.]
Shubhada S Kadam 1/1
Mr. Namdev Chhakdu Gajbhare and ors.
The State of Maharashtra and ors.
Ranjit More
Sadhana Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
