Two writ petitions were listed for hearing. Petitioners sought leave to withdraw the petitions as their purposes had been worked out. The court granted leave and disposed of the writ petitions.
Leave to withdraw the writ petitions granted; petitions disposed.
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.
1 10WP3112.2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3112 OF 2016
Kuldeep S/o. Shankarrao Rathod .... Petitioner
Vs.
Director of Medical Education and Research & Ors. .... Respondents
Shri. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner Shri. S. R. Yadav, AGP for respondent/State
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 3230 OF 2016
Avinash Prabhatrao Patil .... Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents
Shri. A. S. Golegaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner Shri. S. R. Yadav, AGP for respondent/State
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH AND B.U. DEBADWAR, JJ. DATE : 27th January, 2020
ORDER :
that with the passage of time and in view of further developments,
the purpose underlying the present writ petitions is stated to have
been worked out and seek leave to withdraw the same.
2 10WP3112.2016
SG Punde
Kuldeep S/o. Shankarrao Rathod
Director of Medical Education and Research
Avinash Prabhatrao Patil
State of Maharashtra
Sunil P. Deshmukh
B.U. Debadwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
