A High Court bench found the writ petition infructuous due to the passage of time and disposed of the petition accordingly.
The petition was disposed of as 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
940 WRIT PETITION NO.2430 OF 2012
SHIVAJI BALNATH BANE AND ANR VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. B.B. Dahiphale h/f Mr. Patil N.P. AGP for Respondents:Mr. S.P. Sonpawale Advocate for Respondent No.5 :Mr. S.T.Shelke
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ. Date: August 28, 2019
PER COURT :-
1 Heard learned counsel Mr. Dahiphale along with Mr. N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar.
2 Mr. Dahiphale fairly submits to this Court that due to passage of time, the petition has been rendered infructuous.
3 Accepting the statement of Mr. Dahiphale, learned counsel for the petitioner, the petition is disposed of accordingly.
( AVINASH G. GHAROTE ) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. )
vbd
Shivaji Balnath Bane
The State of Mah
Prasanna B. Varale
Avinash G. Gharote
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
