In a writ petition under Article 226 Constitution, the petitioner challenged a notice demanding explanation about alleged usurpation of Gram Panchayat property. The Court dismissed the petition as premature.
Petition dismissed as premature; liberty to challenge future action reserved.
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 5188.18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5188 OF 2018
Kishor Nathuram Kajare versus The State of Maharashtra and ors.
…..Petitioner …..Respondents
Mr. Ashish Gaikwad along with Mr.Bhavana Khichi, advocates for the petitioner.
Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for the State.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE & SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ. DATE : 3rd JULY, 2018.
P. C. :
Heard Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Thakur, learned AGP for the State.
Shubhada Shankar Kadam
Shubhada S Kadam 1/2
Digitally signed by Shubhada Shankar Kadam Date: 2018.07.05 23:04:58 +0530
21 wp 5188.18.doc
premature. Needless to mention that, in the event, any action is taken against the petitioner, he is always at liberty to challenge the same
before an appropriate forum. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
[SMT.ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.]
Shubhada S Kadam 2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court ought to entertain a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice issued by the Deputy CEO regarding alleged usurpation of Gram Panchayat property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kishor Nathuram Kajare
The State of Maharashtra
Ranjit More
Anuja Prabhu Dessai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
