This Court dismissed the writ petition holding that no interference is called for due to availability of alternate remedy and existence of a restraint order against another individual, rendering the petition devoid of merits.
The writ petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merits.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6831 OF 2018
Shaikh Ahmed s/o Shaikh Mastan
... PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
... RESPONDENTS
Shri G.R. Syed, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.M. Ganachari, A.G.P. for State
CORAM: R.M. BORDE AND A.M. DHAVALE, JJ.
DATED : 2nd July, 2018.
ORAL ORDER :
( A.M. DHAVALE ) ( R.M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE
fmp/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether interference in the writ petition under Article 226 is called for in view of availability of alternate remedy and restraint order passed against another individual.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shaikh Ahmed s/o Shaikh Mastan
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. BORDE
A.M. DHAVALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
