In the circumstances of the case and further developments, the petition states that the purpose of the writ petition is substantially worked out. The writ petition is disposed of. No detailed reasoning is provided. This order is a thin disposal without legal propositions suitable for citation.
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
WRIT PETITION NO.5369 OF 2013
APPASAHEB KASHINATH ABUJ VERSUS
.. Petitioner
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS .. Respondents
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Chandrakant V. Thombre AGP for Respondent No.1 : Shri S.N. Kendre Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Shri U.B. Bondar h/f. Shri V.C. Patil
Respondent Nos.4 & 5 – Served.
Advocate for Respondent No.6 : Shri G.K. Naik - Thigle Advocate for Respondent No.7 : Shri D.J. Choudhari
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH & B. U. DEBADWAR, JJ.
Date : 07-01-2020
PER COURT :
( B. U. DEBADWAR, J. ) ( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )
Gajanan
Appasaheb Kashinath Abuaj
The 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
