Petitioner filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court. Court accepted the respondent's statement that corrective steps were taken after site inspection. Petition disposed of without further directions.
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.
13 wp 2344 of 2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2344 OF 2018
Chandrashekhar V. Pillai
…Petitioner
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
…
Respondents
Ms. Shama N. Ghotekar, for Petitioner.
Mr. S.B.Gore, AGP, for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Sheetal Metakari, for Respondent No.2.
CORAM: AKIL KURESHI &
S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.
DATE: 18th JULY, 2019
P.C.:
1. The learned Advocate for the Respondent No.2 stated that the authorities
have inspected the site in April 2019 and corrective steps have been taken. Her
statement is recorded. No further directions are required to be issued. The Writ
Petition is disposed of.
( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )
( AKIL KURESHI, J. )
SSP 1/1
Chandrashekhar V. Pillai
The State of Maharashtra
Akil Kureshi
S.J. Kathawalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court