Court dismissed writ petition seeking directions to decide a review as no statutory provision was cited authorizing the review. Petitioner advised to pursue other legal remedies.
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.
6-WP.1741.2023
jvs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1741 OF 2023
Mohd. Ejaj Chandsaheb Kanul } Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. } Respondents
Mr. Machhindra A. Patil for the petitioner. Mr. R. P. Kadam, AGP for State.
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2023
P.C.:
1. The learned advocate for the petitioner is present.
2. The petitioner seeks directions to decide the review. No provision is referred to under which the review is filed. Review is available only if the same is authorized by the statute. In light of that, no further orders are necessary. It is for the petitioner to pursue the remedy available under law.
3. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
SALUNKE J V
Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.02.17 14:58:39 +0530
1
Mohd. Ejaj Chandsaheb Kanul
The State of Maharashtra
S. V. GANGAPURWALA
SANDEEP V. MARNE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
