The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad disposed of Writ Petition No. 620 of 2016 on the ground of acquiescence. The court held that the petition had become infructuous by efflux of time.
Writ petition disposed as infructuous; no costs.
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.
wp62016.odt
{1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 620 OF 2016
Bhausaheb s/o Ramprasad Chavan and others
Petitioners
Versus
The Additional Collector, Beed & others
Respondents
Mr. K. J. Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. D. R. Kale, Government Pleader, for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, C.J. & S.S. SHINDE, J.
DATE : 27th August, 2021.
PC :
Mr. Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner,
submits that by effuu of time, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
In view of such submission, the writ petition stands disposed of as infructuous. No costs.
JUDGE
CHIEF JUSTICE
adb
Bhausaheb s/o Ramprasad Chavan and others
The Additional Collector, Beed & others
Dipankar Datta
S. S. Shinde
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
