The Court disposed of the writ petition drawing attention to the pending criminal appeal by filing. The grievance regarding the final punishment order was left open for consideration by the appellate forum, rendering the instant petition infructuous.
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
911-WP-6804-2015.doc
Sudhir Rane
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6804 OF 2015
Suryakant Pandharinath Jadhav … Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents.
Mr. Sunil Dighe for the Petitioner. Mr. R.S.Datar for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. Rohan Pawar, AGP for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE & R.G. KETKAR, JJ.
DATE : 10th JANUARY, 2018
PER COURT :
It is informed that by the passage of time, the inquiry proceedings are over and the final order directing the imposition of punishment against the petitioner has also been passed. As against the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal. It is stated that an interim order is passed in the said appeal and hence the grievance raised by the petitioner in the instant petition does not deserve to be considered, since the petition is itself rendered infructuous.
Keeping the contentions raised in the instant petition open for consideration before the appellate forum, the writ petition stands disposed of.
( R.G. KETKAR ) ( R.M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE
Suryakant Pandharinath Jadhav
State of Maharashtra
R.M. Borde
R.G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
