The High Court at Aurangabad dismissed an application seeking an interim prohibitory order. The court held that the prayer was meritless as it was framed during an election period and would expand the scope of the writ petition by an indulgence.
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.
238.20ca
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.238 OF 2020 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3305 OF 2018
Amar s/o Ashokrao Magar & anr.
..APPLICANTS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
..RESPONDENTS
Mr D. P. Palodkar, Advocate for applicants; Mr S. P. Sonpawale, A.G.P. for respondents/State; Mr K. K. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent No.3; Mr N. K. Tungar, Advocate for respondent No.5
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 9th January, 2020
ORAL ORDER:
Though the present application is filed seeking permission to amend the writ petition by way of an interim prayer, the applicants are seeking prohibitory order. In the writ petition, the principal prayers are prayer clauses (A) and (B). Mr Palodkar, learned Counsel for the applicants press the application for an interim orders in terms of prayer clause (C).
238.20ca (2)
the writ petition, we are of the opinion that the application cannot be entertained. The civil application, thus being meritless, deserves to be rejected and same stands rejected accordingly.
(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)
sjk
Amar s/o Ashokrao Magar & anr.
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
Prasanna B. Varale
Anil S. Kilor
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
