Petitioner sought leave to withdraw a writ petition on the ground of passage of time. The court granted leave, dismissed the petition as withdrawn, and imposed no costs.
Leave to withdraw the petition granted; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn. 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.
wp944713.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9447 OF 2013
Dattatray s/o Ratan Bhakare
Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr.Pradeep Salunke, advocate holding for Mr.S.B.Kakade, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, advocate the Respondents No.3 & 4.
CORAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE : JANUARY 20, 2021.
PC :
The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the petition is rendered infructuous due to passage of time; and on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the petition.
Leave granted.
Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
adb
(CHIEF JUSTICE)
Dattatray s/o Ratan Bhakare
The State of Maharashtra
DIPANKAR Datta
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
