The High Court disposed of the writ petition without costs, holding the matter academic. It clarified that the petitioner may challenge the ordinance in appropriate proceedings, without deciding on its legality.
Writ petition disposed of. No costs.
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.
15-WP-13741-18.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.13741 OF 2018
SHIVAJI RAMRAO GANAR VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Ankush N. Nagargoje AGP for Respondents No. 1 to 3 : Shri P. S. Patil Advocate for Respondent No. 4 : Shri Dhananjay M. Shinde
CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 22nd AUGUST, 2019.
PER COURT :
1 of 2
15-WP-13741-18.doc
the order.
SVH
2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent can claim benefit of the first ordinance issued on 11 October 2018 for an election conducted on 6th August 2015.
Whether the petitioner is covered by the second ordinance despite its expiry.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Anant Ulhalkar Vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in 2017 (1) Mh.L.J. 431Referred¶9
Shivaji Ramrao Ganar
The State of Maharashtra
S.V. Gangapurwala
K.K. Sonawane
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
