A two-judge bench rejected a writ petition under Article 226 regarding entitlement to benefits based on a contract with a Municipal Corporation. The court held the extraordinary jurisdiction was not required and the petition lacked substance. Petitioner rejected.
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}
wp3411-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3411 OF 2018
Kishor s/o Bhagwat Khadse
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr. S.S. Deve, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.Y. Mahajan, A.G.P. for respondent no. 1.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
K.K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 4th APRIL, 2018
PER COURT:
Since the petitioner is claiming entitlement on the basis of a contract entered into with the Municipal Corporation, it would be open for the petitioner to avail of the remedies available in law. Even otherwise, we are of the opinion that the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India need not be exercised in the instant petition. The petition is devoid of substance hence stands rejected.
K. K. SONAWANE R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is warranted when the petitioner has contractual remedies available.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kishor s/o Bhagwat Khadse
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. Borde
K.K. Sonawane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
